3PB

3pb.co.uk

Aimee Fox was nominated for Barrister of the Year at the Birmingham Law Society Legal Awards 2023. She is ranked as a leading lawyer by the Legal 500 in all of her areas of practice and takes instructions for cases across the UK; as well as in Chambers & Partners. Prior to completing pupillage and joining the Bar, Aimee was an associate at magic circle law firm, Clifford Chance LLP in Brussels. Aimee specialises exclusively in Family Law and Education Law. She handles an established practice specialising in financial remedies and private law proceedings. She is often instructed for her expertise in education law (SEN) to assist on related Children Act and financial matters where children have additional needs. Aimee’s financial remedy work has included a variety of high value disputes. Aimee has also been instructed on a schedule 1 application with significant international elements and an unusual case involving the enforcement of a German child maintenance order. She continues to be in constant demand for her expertise in complex and highly sensitive cases. Aimee has extensive experience in tribunals relating to EHC Plans. She has also been successful in a number of judicial reviews and appeals to the Upper Tribunal. Aimee’s expertise is such that she is often invited to train other practitioners and was invited to speak on Education Law at the Annual Conference of Chartered Paediatric Physiotherapists at the Emirates Stadium. Education Aimee has a busy education law practice and regularly appears in the First-tier Tribunal. She acts for and advises all parties including, local authorities, schools, parents and young people. Aimee was recently invited to speak on education law at the National Conference of Chartered Paediatric Therapists. Aimee has also been instructed on a number of judicial review matters. She was successful in defending a local authority in a claim for judicial review brought pursuant to section 19(1) Education Act 1996. Other examples of matters Aimee has been involved with include: Discrimination claims Special educational needs Prosecutions for non-attendance at school (including in the Crown Court and High Court) Clerking Permanent Exclusion Review Panels Appeals concerning permanent exclusion School inspection Appeals against decisions of the First-Tier Tribunal Disputes concerning Local Offers Advice and representation in judicial review Notable Cases DH and GH v Staffordshire County Council [2018] UKUT 49 (AAC) This case concerned an appeal from the First Tier Tribunal. The Appellants argued that the Tribunal had misdirected itself on the law in respect of issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan and the ability of a mainstream school to make relevant provision. This case involved issues which Aimee’s opponent, David Wolfe QC, described to Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs at the oral hearing as “complex and novel”. For more information click here. DS, R (on the application of) v Wolverhampton City Council [2017] EWHC 1660 (Admin) Aimee Fox successfully represented the local authority against an allegation that there had been a failure by it to provide suitable education for DS in breach of its duty under section 19(1) of the Education Act 1996. DS had not returned to school after a contested incident during which he had returned home in a state of undress. Mr Justice Garnham went on to consider whether, if a breach had been found, the local authority’s alternative provision would have been suitable. Family Finance Before joining the bar, Aimee worked on mergers and acquisitions in a variety of sectors including pharmaceuticals and telecommunications. Her experience in M&A means she is more than comfortable navigating parties’ financial arrangements on divorce. Aimee is often instructed to represent high-net-worth parties where there are arguments involving inherited wealth or pre- or post-relationship acquired assets. Aimee has been instructed on cases where there are disputes concerning companies, trusts, partnerships, third party interests, cryptocurrency, non-disclosure, inheritance and pre-acquired wealth. Aimee has been involved with a number of more complex matters including cases involving the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and personal injury awards. She has also been able to call upon her expertise in the law of special educational needs (SEN) to assist in advising separating spouses whose children require bespoke accommodation or additional care. Aimee is also happy to provide representation in private FDRs and Early Neutral Evaluations. Cases: Recent cases Aimee has been instructed on include: C v C: Represented applicant at first instance and on appeal against leading financial remedy QC in respect of occupation of the FMH. H v H: Represented applicant in proceedings involving enforcement of child maintenance order from another jurisdiction in the EU. At one stage of the proceedings, the case had been referred to European Court of Justice for guidance on domestic law. R v S: Schedule 1 application in which the respondent was not domiciled in the UK and had business interests and income streams in Mexico, Belize and other jurisdictions. H v B v S: Represented the applicant in proceedings involving a divorce obtained allegedly as a result of fraud and forgery of divorce documents. Queen’s Proctor invited to intervene. T v T: Represented the respondent in an application to vary a ‘Christmas Order’ for child periodical payments. W v W: A civil partnership dispute in which the assets were worth several million pounds and included a large property portfolio and a very high value share portfolio. Arguments also involved financial liabilities abroad. B v S: Financial remedy proceedings with concurrent proceedings in the Crown Court with the matrimonial assets at risk because of a Proceeds of Crime Act application by the Crown Prosecution Service. D v D: Financial remedy proceedings made complicated as a result of the application having been made some 15 years after the end of the marriage. F v F: Final hearing of committal application for failure to comply with orders and provide disclosure in financial remedy proceedings. K v K: Represented the Wife in a case where the court awarded her 100% of the identifiable assets as a result of the Husband’s poor litigation conduct. Private Law Children, Injunction and Domestic Abuse Aimee is well known for her expertise in private law matters. Aimee is regularly instructed in complex proceedings involving children which include allegations of physical and emotional abuse, sexual abuse, domestic violence and parental alienation. Aimee is well equipped to handle applications where there has been social work involvement after spending a number of years representing parties in public law care proceedings. Aimee’s expertise in education law allows her to excel in applications before the family court involving children with special educational needs (SEN), mental health diagnoses or disabilities including Autism. This also allows her to provide advice on applications involving schooling. Aimee is experienced in representing parties involved in disputes where there is expert evidence. In her areas of practice, she has cross-examined psychologists including educational psychologists, psychiatrists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists, physiotherapists as well as teachers. She has experience of internal and international relocation cases and has provided training to solicitors on pursuing and defending relocation applications. Aimee has an LLM in European Law which makes her particularly adept in this area. She also completed prestigious internships at the British Institute of International & Comparative Law and the International Bar Association. Aimee has been commended for her personable manner and client focused approach. She always seeks to find pragmatic and cost-effective solutions for her clients. Cases: Recent cases Aimee has been instructed on include: G v R: Represented a parent in protracted proceedings against a leading QC in which the subject child was recognised as academically gifted. The child’s stellar talent and achievements factored heavily in the arguments raise by the parties. Alienation was also alleged. D v D: Represented the applicant in private law proceedings against a leading QC. Allegations of domestic abuse and punishment of the children featured in the case. The matter procedurally complex and involved the consolidation of concurrent proceedings in respect of other siblings. R v J: Represented a high-profile public figure in private law proceedings. A v D: 7 day fact-find to determine allegations of domestic violence. One party represented by a leading QC. H v H: International relocation to Romania. P v B v P: Private law proceedings in which the child had been subject to lengthy litigation and numerous appeals in Poland. Jurisdictional issues arose as well as consideration of the legal effect of orders made in Poland. D v H v I: Lengthy private law proceedings with arguments on parental alienation and residence as well as special guardianship and the applicability of a section 91(14) barring order. There was involvement from NYAS. A v C: Appeal in private law proceedings arising from the court’s decision to transfer residence. D v D: Private law proceedings requiring the court’s determination in respect of the child’s medical treatment and schooling. B v R: Private law proceedings involving multiple experts from various fields. Y v F: Advising special guardians on international relocation. B v B: International relocation in which respondent parent was living outside the jurisdiction. T v T: Private law proceedings involving at 16.4 guardian and a child with Autism. FDR Hearing Service Aimee is available for private remote FDR hearings. Public and Regulatory Aimee Fox's public and administrative law practice is focused on her expertise in all aspects of education law and she regularly appears in the First-tier Tribunal. She acts for and advises all parties including local authorities, schools, parents and young people. Aimee was recently invited to speak on education law at the National Conference of Chartered Paediatric Therapist. She has given a number of seminars across the country on issues relating to Education, Health & Care Plans, exclusions and admissions. Aimee has been instructed on a number of judicial review matters in the education sector. She was successful in defending a local authority in a claim for judicial review brought pursuant to section 19(1) Education Act 1996. More recently she has been instructed on judicial review matters relating to the impact of Covid-19 on educational provision.

Alex Leonhardt

Alex Leonhardt joined 3PB in April 2021 following the successful completion of his pupillage with Chambers under Cheryl Jones and Charlotte Hadfield. He is based in the London office. Alex accepts instruction in all areas of civil law, and has a particular interest in employment, commercial, property and housing, education and public law. Prior to coming to the Bar, Alex worked in politics as a researcher to Members of Parliament and in public affairs for a body representing higher education providers. He also worked as a paralegal in a housing and public law department at a London law firm. Employment and Discrimination Alex is frequently instructed across the full range of Employment Tribunal and civil court employment matters, and is a frequent contributor to 3PB’s Employment Newsletter. He has particular experience in acting for schools, universities and education professionals, informed by his education law practice. He also acts in Equality Act claims brought in the County Court and First-tier Tribunal outside of the employment context, and has experience of claims on behalf of both employers and employees arising from restrictive covenants and non-poaching clauses. His recent cases include: Obtaining a finding that a claimant’s belief in English nationalism was not a protected belief for the purposes of a discrimination claim brought against a university employer Successfully representing a claimant in a redundancy claim, on the basis of superficial consultation with employees and the recognised trade union Securing an order that a claimant pay 100% of the costs of the Respondent in an unmeritorious and unreasonably brought discrimination claim Acting pro bono to assist an ex-employee obtain a £15,000 settlement following a failure by an employer to offer contractual hours Advising and pleading in a disability discrimination claim brought against a community sports club operating as an unincorporated association Providing advice and drafting on jurisdiction issues arising from the State Immunity Act Disability discrimination claims arising from “mask mandates” imposed by shops during the coronavirus pandemic. Commercial Alex accepts instructions representing individuals and businesses in disputes on all contractual matters. His aim is to always provide clear and practical advice that enables his clients to make confident decisions in litigation. He has represented clients in a wide range of goods and services and debt claims, at trial and at interlocutory and case management hearings. His recent instructions include acting for employers and employees/directors in civil claims arising from restrictive covenants, non-compete clauses and non-poaching clauses, and he is keen to develop his practice in these areas. Owing to his education and discrimination practices he is particularly well placed to act in claims relating to education contracts, and has experience in multi-faceted claims in that arena brought on the basis of breach of contract, discrimination and negligence. Property and Estates Alex accepts instructions in residential and commercial landlord and tenant claims, and matters relating to local authorities’ duties in relation to homelessness and allocation of social housing under the Housing Act 1996. He has also acted in claims for injunctions under the Protection from Harassment Act relating to the use and enjoyment of property. Alex has experience in advising on lease renewals, service charge liabilities and the enforcement of covenants, as well as acting for both landlords and tenants in possession and disrepair cases. He accepts instructions from both local authorities and claimants in housing matters under the Housing Act 1996, and has a strong understanding of this area from his experience as a paralegal working in a housing and public law team at a solicitors’ firm specialising in these areas of work. Education Alex accepts instructions in discrimination, breach of contract and negligence claims arising in the context of schools, colleges and universities in the First-tier Tribunal and the civil courts, as well as school admission and exclusion cases and judicial review cases relating to education. A recent case involved successfully representing a school in defending a discrimination claim on the basis that a pupil’s violent behaviour was not something arising from the disability relied upon. Alex’s previous experience of working in higher education policy means that he is particularly interested in cases in the higher education context, including discrimination and breach of contract claims, judicial reviews and cases involving complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.

Alice de Coverley

Alice de Coverley is a specialist education, equality, and public law barrister. Alice has a busy practice across these fields. She regularly acts on behalf of children and young people, vulnerable adults, parents and carers, schools, local authorities, charities and NGOs, government departments, students, and universities. Alice has significant experience in working with children and young people with disabilities, mental health conditions, special educational needs and those who have experienced sexual violence. Alice appears almost daily before the First-Tier Tribunal in disability discrimination claims and appeals relating to the contents of Education, Health and Care Plans (Sections B, F and I and National Trial cases in England) and Statements (in the SENTW in Wales). Alice has had notable success in “waking day” and “education otherwise than at school” appeals. Through her public inquiry work, Alice has developed specialist knowledge in the field of safeguarding, sexual bullying, and sexual violence. She works alongside schools, ISVAs, government bodies, charities, and women’s rights organisations to develop policies and practices that aim to better protect victims of sexual violence. Alice currently acts as Junior Counsel for Ofsted across multiple strands of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA), led by Mathew Gullick KC and Sarah Hannett KC. IICSA looks at how various institutions have failed to protect children from sexual abuse – this includes schools, religious institutions, and care homes. Alice also works on inquests involving vulnerable school children who have died. She is also currently instructed in a claim involving the sexual assault of a female prisoner and is on the legal referral panel for the Centre for Women’s Justice. Her prior personal injury practice continues to aid in her in being able to advise on private law matters of liability and quantum. Alice is currently instructed in various high-profile judicial review challenges, including claims arising from the coronavirus pandemic affecting young people in education. This included one of the prominent A Level exam judicial reviews in 2020. Alice acts on behalf of both families and local authorities. Alice is a leading light in the area of school exclusions. Alice has written a book on the law of school exclusions alongside her colleague, Charlotte Hadfield, available on Amazon. This extensive knowledge of school exclusions is used to train local authorities, schools, charities, government bodies, private practice solicitors’ firms and parents directly. Other colleagues in the high profile 3PB Education team often use her extensive knowledge in this area to assist with difficult and complex cases. Alice is also a contributing author to “Patterson & Karim on Judicial Review” (Lexis, 2019), heading up the Education Law chapter. Alongside school exclusions, Alice has further specialism in discrimination claims brought under the Equality Act 2010. This includes claims for disability, sex, race, religious, sexual orientation, and gender reassignment discrimination, as well as sexual harassment and victimisation. For several years post-pupillage, Alice worked very closely with Ofsted providing specialist advisory and advocacy services in all areas that Ofsted regulates and inspects. Her work for Ofsted covered everything from mainstream to independent schools, child protection and safeguarding matters, local authority inspections, and the combating of off rolling and illegal and unregistered schools. Alice worked on a range of complex Equality Act 2010 matters, advising HMCI directly on high-profile matters, such as segregation and sex education. She has also been involved in drafting guidance for inspectors and the public, including the Education Inspection Framework, and assisted in the delivery of various public consultations. She also acts in breach of contract and negligence claims, and freedom of speech cases, against education providers and local authorities, recently successfully defending a £1 million claim against a top University. Alice was The Times’ Lawyer of the Week in July 2023. She is the winner of the Legal 500 ESG 2024 "Disability/ Neurodiversity: Bar Champion of the Year" award. Alice de Coverley is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact Alice for a copy of her privacy policy which sets out the basis upon which any personal data she may collect about you, or that is provided to her, will be processed by her. She will provide a copy of this policy to you within 2 working days of its request. Education Alice has an exceptional education practice. She is passionate about Education Law and children’s rights. Prior to commencing pupillage, Alice was the Chief Director of The School Exclusion Project for four years. This is an award-winning pro-bono unit dedicated to representing parents of permanently excluded school children. Alice also acts for Ofsted in the Care Standards Tribunal, and is currently acting for Ofsted as Junior Counsel on the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA). For full details of the work that Alice is currently dealing with please see her Public Law profile. She has specialisms within the Education arena and has dealt with a number of matters including claims brought under the Equality Act 2010 for disability, sex, race, pregnancy, sexual orientation and gender reassignment discrimination, harassment and victimization. Alice also regularly appears in appeals in the context of EHC Plans (Sections B F and I) and National Trial cases. Alice acts for parents, children, young people, schools, Universities, Local Authorities, charities and governmental organisations. She is instructed to act and advise in relation to a broad range of education law matters, including: Appeals to the SEND Tribunal on the content of EHC Plans Discrimination (particularly disability discrimination) claims in the FTT and County Court Compliance with the Equality Act 2010 School Exclusions Judicial Review Breach of contract and negligence claims involving education providers School Admissions Home Education Internal academic appeals Fitness to Practice appeals Appeals to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator Public consultations Public inquiries Data protection and subject access requests. Reported cases: SS v Proprietor of an Independent School [2024] UKUT 00029 (AAC) London Borough of Camden v KT [2023] UKUT 225 (AAC) Mermaids v (1) The Charity Commission for England and Wales (2) LGB Alliance [2023] UKFTT 563 (GRC) London Borough of Croydon v K-A (SEN): [2022] UKUT 106 (AAC), [2022] AACR 6 Recent education law matters which Alice has been involved in include: Successfully representing a child with epilepsy in a disability discrimination claim against his school, with the decision being sent by the Tribunal to the EHRC, the DfE and to Ofsted as a result. Successfully representing a child with complex and mental health difficulties in a disability discrimination claim against an Academy which had unlawfully place him in isolation for 3 months. Successfully representing a child with ADHD ODD and sensory processing disorder in a claim against his school for failure to allow him to attend a skiing trip and punishing him for behaviors arising from hi disability. Successfully representing a number of children in their Section I appeals, enabling their progress at the right school which meets their needs. Successfully representing children in appeals against “refusal to assess” or “refusal to issue” EHC plans. Successfully overturning a permanent exclusion decision regarding a 6 year old child that brought a cheese knife to school. Drafting Ofsted policies and consultation responses on schools, social care settings, unregistered schools, and equality law matters. Policy drafting in relation to counter-terrorism measures taken by schools. Advising medical and nursing students in claims under the Equality Act 2010 where the University’s competency assessment standards conflicted with the duty to make reasonable adjustments. Advising and representing in relation to negligence claims for failure to spot learning difficulties. Advising and representing in relation to breach of contract claims involving Independent Schools. Advising parents of school pupils with disabilities who have been unlawfully permanently excluded. Drafting funding applications to the European Human Rights Commission, to support client’s cases concerning discrimination in education. Drafting submissions to the Health and Conduct Committee/Fitness to Practise Committee. Drafting submissions to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. Alice has also helped to create a number of BBC Radio 4 programmes about school exclusions. Whilst Alice was Chief Director of The School Exclusion Project, it featured in the press several times addressing unlawful exclusions – for instance this Guardian article. She is also a volunteer for the charity Inspiring the Future, which connects young people in state schools and colleges with those from the world of work. She has recently been part of their Inspiring Women campaign, mentoring girls from various schools to raise their aspirations and break down gender stereotypes. Whilst dealing with a busy practice, Alice also finds time to assist the Centre for Women’s Justice by providing pro bono legal advice to Women that approach the charity in need of assistance in a range of matters. Alice is happy to provide training in relation to education law. Of late she provided training on school admissions appeals to Local Authorities, a talk on disability discrimination to a children’s charity and ran a seminar on school exclusions for solicitors. Please get in touch with her clerks should this be something you would wish to organise. Commercial Alice acts in a wide range of contractual matters. She has particular experience and interest in contractual matters arising in the education and social care sector. In particular, she specialises in breach of contract claims involving independent/ private schools, local authorities, and universities. She also acts in claims involving the supply of paid services for disabled people. She regularly advises education providers, parents, and students on contracts regarding the sale of goods, supply of services, school fees, debt recovery action, enforcement action, agency relationships, misrepresentation, and duress. She can also advise on the interplay between breach of contract claims and public law matters, such as the relevance of the Equality Act 2010 to independent school disputes. She regularly assists in the drafting of settlement agreements with appropriate confidentiality and indemnity clauses, if so required. Recent examples of cases Alice has been involved in include: Successfully representing parents in claim for breach of contract against their child’s independent school Successfully obtaining damages for a young person who was mistreated by his independent school and return of school fees for his parents Successfully defending universities in applications to strike out claims for disability discrimination and/or breach of contract Successfully defending a top university in a £1m breach of contract and negligence claim Advising care providers on the recovery of unpaid fees from public authorities. Direct Access Alice accepts Direct Access instructions for Education Law cases. Alice is particularly passionate about Education Law. Prior to commencing pupillage, Alice was the Chief Director of The School Exclusion Project for four years. This is an award-winning pro-bono unit dedicated to representing parents of permanently excluded school children. Alice is instructed to act and advise in relation to a broad range of Education Law matters, including: Breach of contract and negligence claims involving education providers School Exclusions School Admissions Appeals to the SEND Tribunal on the content of EHC Plans Discrimination (particularly disability discrimination) claims in the FTT and County Court Internal academic appeals / Fitness to Practice appeals Appeals to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator Recent matters which Alice has been involved in include: Advising medical and nursing students in claims under the Equality Act where the University’s competency assessment standards conflicted with the duty to make reasonable adjustments. Advising a Higher Education provider on their duties under the Equality Act when a student disclosed a previously unknown disability after examinations had taken place. Advising in relation to negligence claims for failure to diagnose learning difficulties. Advising in relation to breach of contract claims involving Independent Schools. Advising parents of school pupils with disabilities who have been unlawfully permanently excluded. Drafting funding applications to the European Human Rights Commission, to support client’s cases concerning discrimination in education. Drafting submissions to the Health and Conduct Committee/Fitness to Practice Committee. Appeals against Termination of Registration. Drafting submissions to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. Alice has also helped to create a number of BBC Radio 4 programmes about school exclusions. Whilst Alice was Chief Director of The School Exclusion Project, it featured in the press several times addressing unlawful exclusions – for instance. She is also a volunteer for the charity Inspiring the Future, which connects young people in state schools and colleges with those from the world of work. She has recently been part of their Inspiring Women campaign, mentoring girls from various schools to raise their aspirations and break down stereotypes. Alice is happy to provide training in relation to Education Law. Of late she provided training on school admissions appeals to Local Authorities, a talk on disability discrimination to a children’s charity and ran a seminar on school exclusions for solicitors. Please get in touch with her clerks should this be something you would wish to organize. Public and Regulatory Alice currently acts as Junior Counsel for Ofsted across multiple strands of IICSA led by Mathew Gullick QC and Sarah Hannett QC. IICSA looks at how various institutions have failed to protect children from sexual abuse – this includes schools, religious institutions, and care homes. Alice is actively involved with the Inquiry’s investigations into: Residential Schools The Roman Catholic Church The Anglican Church Nottinghamshire Councils Child protection in religious organisations and settings Effective leadership of child protection Through her public inquiry work, Alice has developed specialist knowledge in the field of safeguarding, sexual bullying, and sexual violence. She works alongside schools, ISVAs, government bodies, charities, and women’s rights organisations to develop policies and practices that aim to better protect victims of sexual violence. Alice is regularly instructed by local authorities and families in judicial reviews concerning disabled children. Alice has worked very closely with Ofsted providing specialist advisory and advocacy services in all areas it inspects and regulates, from social care to independent schools to unregistered schools. Alice’s experience has been used at Ofsted to focus on Equality Act matters and drafting guidance for their inspectors. Alice worked on a range of complex Equality Act 2010 matters, advising HMCI directly on high-profile matters, such as segregation and sex education. She has also been involved in drafting guidance for inspectors and the public, including the Education Inspection Framework, and assisted in the delivery of various public consultations. Alice also has experience in inquest work involving school children who have died, including cases involving drug-misuse. Whilst working for the Government Legal Department, Alice assisted with many matters ranging from Immigration, employment and discrimination cases and the Kenyan Emergency Group Litigation. Sports Alice de Coverley has notable expertise in the safeguarding and child-protection dimension of Sports Law. She acts for sport regulators, clubs and teams, and private clients in a wide range of Sports Law matters. Alice has considerable experience in child safeguarding in sports. This includes child protection in national and international sports and after-school clubs, arising from her instruction on behalf of Ofsted as Junior Counsel in the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Alice is also involved in complex litigation arising from the sexual abuse of young people by sports coaches, PE teachers and after-school club leaders. Alice prosecutes cases before the Football Association and other regulators. Alice is also a Season Ticket holder at Chelsea Ladies FC and former British Fencer. Recent cases include: For the Football Association, she successfully prosecuted a referee in a case concerning serious child protection issues. The referee was permanently banned from football. For young athletes and school children, she has successfully acted in cases concerning sports coaches and PE teachers, who have failed to protect those in their care from physical and/or sexual abuse.

Amanda Fernandez

Amanda Fernandez is a barrister based in 3PB’s London office. Amanda has won numerous academic and advocacy scholarships, including an award for her cross-examination skills. She accepts instructions in property, housing, commercial and personal injury litigation. She has a busy court practice and regularly appears in the County Court in all manner of interlocutory applications and trials as well as housing matters. She also welcomes instructions on all written advisory and drafting work. Prior to pupillage, Amanda represented clients in consumer credit, debt recovery and enforcement disputes as a County Court Advocate. She also worked as a banking and finance litigation paralegal in an international law firm, where she drafted legal letters and statements of case in claims in breach of contract and misrepresentation issued for and against a major international bank. Amanda also worked pro-bono for a law clinic providing non-contentious corporate legal advice to business start-ups. She conduced conferences and provided written advice to multiple start-up companies on matters such as company structure, company registration and shareholdings. Amanda is friendly and approachable and speaks fluent Spanish. Outside work, Amanda enjoys backpacking, camping and outdoor swimming (in all weather)!

Andrew Nicklin

Andrew Nicklin is a specialist property and chancery barrister who joined 3PB from chambers in East Anglia in 2023. He has a busy practice across the South East (including London and all of East Anglia) with particular expertise in real property, landlord and tenant, trusts of land and other trusts/estate disputes. He appears in the High Court (Business and Property Courts), the County Court and other tribunals providing a high level of client care and service to solicitors and direct access clients alike. Whilst Andrew is an experienced trial advocate and courtroom practitioner, a substantial part of his practice includes advice (in writing, in conference and at the site of any land or property dispute). His skills also adapt well into mediations and joint settlement meetings. Many of Andrew’s cases are effectively resolved through active and focused dispute resolution. Solicitors and business/private clients usually instruct Andrew in the following primary areas of work: Real property disputes Landlord and tenant claims (including residential cases engaging the Equality Act 2010) Trusts of land and other equitable rights acquired over land Land and property disputes involving local authorities (including gypsy and traveller sites) Probate and estate disputes (typically with a property dimension) Other disputes concerning trusts and trustees Professional negligence and related contractual claims concerning property and land transactions Insolvency and partnership disputes (usually with a property dimension) Andrew offers engaging training seminars/webinars on a range of topics within his specialism. Contact his clerks for an initial enquiry. Andrew is able to draw on substantial past experience as a broad common law practitioner in East Anglia. His knowledge and skills have developed through a mix of civil, employment and public law work, including education, discrimination and inquests. His breadth of knowledge and experience is invaluable in dealing with a range of issues which may arise in property, land and chancery disputes. Before being called to the Bar he taught history, politics and critical thinking at a large comprehensive school in North East London. He has also been a governor of a primary school in Norfolk. Andrew is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy and data, which he processes and controls in accordance with the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. Please contact Andrew or his clerk for a copy of his privacy policy which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may collect about you, or that is provided to him in the course of working with you, will be processed. Andrew or his clerk will provide a copy of his policy to you promptly by email upon request. Property and Estates Andrew is a specialist property and chancery barrister with 3PB’s Property and Estates team. His practice is a mix of real property, landlord and tenant and traditional chancery, regularly advising and representing clients in the High Court (Business and Property Courts), County Courts and other specialist Tribunals. Andrew is recognised for providing a high level of client care and service to solicitors and lay clients alike. Andrew has a particular specialism and substantial experience in real property matters, acting and advising in disputes such as: Adverse possession Boundary disputes Rights of way and easements (including right to light cases) Public rights and protected or designated sites (such as SSSIs) Land Registration Covenants Trusts of Land (ToLATA) claims and orders for sale Estoppel and other equitable remedies involving land and proprietary rights Trespass and nuisance claims Real property disputes involving public bodies and local authorities Professional negligence claims involving property transactions and surveys In leasehold and housing matters, Andrew regularly advises and represents clients in the following: Leases and enfranchisement Commercial landlord and tenant disputes (1954 Act) Residential landlord and tenant (leases and licences) Agricultural tenancies Local authority housing policy advice Housing disrepair claims Trespass Social housing and anti-social behaviour Equality Act 2010 matters in housing cases Mobile Homes Act claims Andrew also has a particular specialism in property and housing related claims in respect of local authority gypsy and traveller sites. Andrew has worked with a number of local authorities concerning issues such as: licences, Mobile Homes Act claims, water disputes, equitable interests over sites, adverse possession, anti-social behaviour, site management and diversity inclusion and Equality Act issues. Some recent property case highlights include: Successfully representing a commercial tenant at multi-track trial in respect of a 1954 Act lease renewal and on appeal before Roth J in the Chancery Division (Rolls Building) in 2022. The trial judgment was upheld save for an adjustment to the trial costs order. Successfully representing a man who had been in adverse possession of an unregistered village motor garage for in excess of 20 years. After a four-day trial, the trial judge dismissed the claim for possession and made declarations as to his adverse possession and his entitlement to be registered as the proprietor of the garage at HM Land Registry. Successfully representing a couple in defending the preservation of their rights of way across land previously sold off in part. Settling a complex and historic boundary and adverse possession dispute between neighbouring properties involving water. Settling a family ToLATA dispute involving a hotel Representing a property company in its claim for rescission of the purchase of a public house on the basis of misrepresentations made by the vendor. Advising and representing a central London homeowner in respect of his professional negligence claim against solicitors as to faulty advice regarding the removal of restrictive covenants from his title prior to commencing the build of an expensive second property on the land. Advice and drafting in respect of claims against surveyors prior to property purchases. Advice in respect of right to light. Advice in respect of a case involving the infringement of public rights of way and rights over an SSSI. Settling a complex property dispute concerning adverse possession of a gypsy and traveller site. Probate and Chancery Andrew Nicklin has a busy chancery and probate practice with considerable experience in contested wills, trust disputes and Inheritance Act claims. Typical cases in which he is instructed include: Disputes between trustees and beneficiaries, particularly concerning the conduct of trustees and attorneys and the management of trusts Advice on the role and duties of trustees, including Beddoe applications in respect of trust litigation Contested probate, usually involving: Testamentary capacity Undue influence Fraud Inheritance Act claims and disappointed beneficiaries Other chancery work involves: Insolvency applications and advice (recently acting for a liquidator in respect of a construction company with creditors exceeding £2m) Partnership disputes, usually with a property dimension and/or ToLATA issues Professional Negligence, often involving property work Commercial Andrew is an experienced commercial and chancery practitioner. His expertise spans business-to-business contractual disputes, equitable remedies, partnership disputes, insolvency, professional negligence, and consumer law. Core Specialist Areas: Insolvency and Bankruptcy: Andrew has a wealth of experience in handling insolvency matters, including acting for liquidators, validating transactions pre-bankruptcy orders, and resisting injunctions related to winding up petitions. Partnership Disputes: Often involving real property assets, which are referred to arbitration under partnership agreements. Commercial Disputes: Involving complex multi-jurisdictional proceedings, misrepresentation, and estoppel defences. Professional Negligence: Extending to claims against solicitors, pre-purchase building surveys, and successful representation of architects in court trials. Equitable Remedies: With a strong background in equitable remedies, Andrew advises on unconscionable transactions, fraud, non est factum, and cases involving the court's equitable jurisdiction. Recent and ongoing Cases: Acting a claim for a substantial deferred remuneration and contractual interest. The dispute arises from a broader investment in innovative culinary solutions distributed internationally, with the case centering on the rescission of a previous agreement and the conditionality of payment on further funding. Acting for a liquidator in the recovery of payments made post-winding up petition, managing validation order applications and other claims for void payments. Advised and represented a businessman in a validation order concerning a home transaction before a bankruptcy order. Successfully resisted an injunction to restrain the presentation of a winding up petition related to unpaid invoices under a substantial construction contract. Represented a dentist in bankruptcy proceedings, rescinding the bankruptcy order after securing commercial funding. Handled various winding up petitions, bankruptcy petitions, and applications to set aside statutory demands. Handled a partnership dispute involving approximately £1.5 million in real property assets referred to arbitration. Advised on unconscionable transactions and other equitable remedies, including property transfers at undervalue. Represented a professional theatre company in a substantial loss of profit claim arising from a breach of contract. Professional Negligence: Claimed damages against a solicitors' firm for negligent advice on the release of a no-build covenant. Successfully represented an architect in a county court trial for alleged faulty work.

Angela Grahame KC

Angela Grahame KC (Scot) has been in practice in Scotland since 1995 and became a silk in Scotland in 2009. She was called in England & Wales in 2019. She is the first practising female KC from the Scottish Bar to practice at the Bar in England and Wales. Angela has extensive experience in many challenging and high-profile personal injury, clinical negligence and abuse cases. She is the Vice Dean of the Scottish Bar - the equivalent of the Vice Chair - and the second most senior Advocate in Scotland. Angela was the lead counsel in the Vale of Leven Public Inquiry for Greater Glasgow Health Board, the largest Health Board in Scotland. This Inquiry was tasked with investigating how 131 patients had contracted the Hospital Acquired Infection, C Difficile and the cause of death of 34 of those patients. She was also lead counsel representing the Lord Advocate, the chief legal officer of the Scottish Government and the Crown in Scotland, in the Fingerprint Inquiry following the Shirley McKie trial. This Inquiry changed fundamentally the procedures for Fingerprint investigations in all criminal cases across Scotland. Angela is regularly in court and has conducted many proofs (evidential hearings), legal debates and hearings in the Court of Session, including those relating to personal injury and clinical negligence claims. Angela has been instructed as lead counsel and negotiated settlements in many multi-million pound claims. These have included catastrophic brain injury cases which involve 24-hour care and reduced life expectancy. Angela spent four years as a full time prosecutor, known as Crown Counsel in Scotland (Advocate Depute and Senior Advocate Depute), conducting complex and serious High Court criminal trials, Criminal Appeal Court cases and appeals in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Angela was appointed as an ad hoc Advocate Depute by the Lord Advocate in 2017. In addition to the above, Angela has been pivotal as counsel arguing cases which have sought to extend the law of liability for sexual abuse. She has been instructed in complex harassment cases. She has also been lead counsel in claims which sought to develop the law in relation to Article 2 claims under ECHR. She was instructed for the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund in the well-known “Braer disaster actions”. Additionally, she has experience in commercial actions, contractual disputes and some judicial review. Angela is highly regarded by instructing agents for her astute tactical awareness, highly effective negotiation skills and advocacy ability. She is very interested in the use of other forms of dispute resolution in personal injury and clinical negligence claims; and is one of very few Senior Counsel at the Scottish Bar with high level arbitration qualifications. In 2017 she attained Membership level of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and was fast-tracked to the Fellowship Course in 2018, passing the Fellowship Examination in Arbitral Practice and Procedure and Award Writing with one of the highest marks in Scotland. She attained Fellowship following the requisite oral interview. Her interest in Additional Dispute Resolution continues as she is now studying to become an accredited Mediator. In 2018, she was appointed as Honorary Lecturer in the School of Law, University of Aberdeen and has and will lecture in both international arbitration and clinical negligence. As well as her extensive Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence practices, Angela has acted in numerous significant cases. For example she was involved in The Braer Claims. The MV Braer was an oil tanker which ran aground during a storm off Shetland, Scotland, in January 1993, and a week later broke up causing catastrophic pollution. For over 10 years, Angela was instructed by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Authority in 200+ claims for damages for breach of contract/delict, arising out of the Braer grounding. Some of these cases were: The Fowlie Claims unreported (6 conjoined actions under the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 for compensation for damage to asbestos cement roofing materials; per Lord Gill) Anderson v Griffiths (Unreported) 1 December 2004 Shetland Sea Farms v Skuld & Ors, (Unreported) 28 May 2003 Anderson & Ors (Unreported) 8 March 2001 per Lord Gill Anderson & Ors v Skuld (Unreported) 14 February 2001 Flaws v IOPCF 2001 SLT 897 (Procedure Roll; Action of Declarator; Contract; Offer and acceptance; Time for acceptance; whether within reasonable time) Flaws v IOPCF 2002 SLT 270 (Inner House) (contract; formation; offer and acceptance; time for acceptance; whether within reasonable time). Angela has appeared before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in: Holland v HMA [2005] UKPC D 1; 2005 1 S.C. (P.C.) 3; 2005 S.L.T. 563; (Human Rights; Devolution Issue; Disclosure; Evidence) Sinclair (Alvin Lee) v HMA [2005] UKPC D 2; 2005 1 S.C. (P.C.) 28; 2005 S.L.T. 553; (Human Rights; Devolution Issue; Disclosure; Procedure) Robertson v Higson; O’Dalaigh v Higson; Ruddy v McLeod (reported as Robertson v Frame) [2006] UKPC D 2; 2006 S.C. (P.C.) 22; 2006 S.L.T. 478 (Human Rights; Devolution issue; Acquiescence; Temporary Sheriffs) She appeared for the Crown in the important Full Bench (5 judge) decision in: Fleming v HMA [2006] HCJAC 64; 2007 J.C. 44; 2006 S.C.C.R. 594 (full bench) (extension to timebar; interpretation of transitional provisions); and in MacDonald v McGowan [2010] HCJAC 36; 2010 J.C. 219; 2010 S.L.T. 735 (plea in bar of trial; "acceptable plea" letters) Personal Injury Angela’s expertise in this area is consistently recognised in the leading legal Directories, Chambers UK and the Legal 500. Comments have included: “She has expertise in a wide array of personal injury matters including road traffic accident claims, employers’ liability and catastrophic injuries. She is also experienced in cases concerning industrial diseases and property damage” and “She has a broad breadth of knowledge and is very good on her feet”; “She’s very thorough and measured”; “Sources appreciate her approachable nature and experience in personal injury matters”; “She is incredibly detailed and excellent in Court. No matter what happens in Court, she always handles it superbly.” The following are some of her reported cases in this area: Gracie v City of Edinburgh Council [2018] CSOH 37 This was an action of damages raised by a former pupil against a local education authority for injuries sustained in an accident in 1965, the pursuer’s motion to allow a Minute of Amendment was refused as he had failed to aver “exceptional circumstances” justifying the exercise of the court’s discretion under s. 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. The Court determined that it would not be equitable to allow the action to proceed. Phensrisai v Yutikan 2017 SLT 631 A proof on quantum in a fatal road traffic collision where a former Buddhist monk studying for a PhD sustained spine and chest fractures and sought damages for past and future losses and miscellaneous costs. Dr Prescott v University of St Andrews [2016] CSOH 3 The pursuer alleged he contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos during his employment with the University when he entered the Old Library building when construction works were ongoing. No Scottish cases have gone to proof in relation to similar circumstances. This is almost the only time a mesothelioma case has proceeded to proof in Scotland. All issues (apart from diagnosis and quantum) were in dispute – the key issues for the Court were those of exposure; negligent exposure; and causation). The Court heard evidence from Dr Moore Gillon, the defenders expert, an internationally renowned expert. The pursuer in the event did not manage to discharge the issues of exposure and causation. McShane v Burnwynd Racing Stables [2015] CSOH 70; 2015 Rep LR 107 The pursuer was a horse trainer. He was training a horse on a gallop when the horse fell on him and he sustained a serious shoulder injury which rendered him incapable of working. The pursuer alleged that this was due to the poor state of the gallop. Arguments were made in terms of the Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992 and also in relation to the Work at Height Regulations 2005, in respect of which there were no reported cases. This was a very complicated case due to last minute issues which arose, which required changes to the pleadings and further investigations and expert evidence. The Court held that the gallop had not been defective. Talbot v Babcock International Ltd & Anr [2014] CSOH 160; 2014 S.L.T. 1077 An industrial disease claim. The defenders lodged a Minute of Tender for provisional damages in the usual terms, which was accepted. When the matter came before the court the defenders attempted to impose further restrictions on the return conditions, not contained within the Tender. This case has had consequences for agents drafting Tenders in the future, where they offer provisional damages or they wish the Tender to be conditional in some way. Shields v Crossroads (Orkney) Ltd [2013] CSOH 144; 2014 S.L.T. 190; 2013 S.C.L.R. 730 This was a Procedure Roll debate before Lord Pentland. The action was brought by a carer against the employer of a social worker assigned to her case in respect of serious injury to her mental health and certain financial losses, following a brief love affair between herself and the social worker. The case is important as it sought to expand the scope and extent of the common law by examining whether the employer had to take reasonable care for the carer’s safety and to protect her against the employee's conduct. The Court held ultimately that there was no basis upon which it would be fair, just and reasonable for the common law to impose a duty on the social worker not to enter into a relationship with her. The case is an authority in this respect. Police Federation Personal Injury Claims Law v Chief Constable [2015] (negligence during a training exercise; police officer injured during training) Stevenson v Chief Constable [2014] (negligence; breach of duty of care; police officer injured during training exercise; whether safe system of work) Rankin v Chief Constable [2013] (proof before Lady Rae in relation to negligence during a training exercise; breach of duty of care) Angela was also instructed in the first two reported cases in Scotland arising out of personal injury claims against the Police for injuries during training exercises. Franklin v Chief Constable of Grampian [2001 Rep LR; 2001 G.W.D. 19-752] (Negligence; Duty of care; Police officer injured during training exercise when injuries inflicted to his wrist by handcuffs; whether safe system of working (instructed by the Police Federation)) Grant v Chief Constable of Grampian [2001 Rep LR; 2001 G.W.D. 15-583] (Negligence; Duty of care; Police officer injured during training exercise when struck with baton on his arm; whether safe system of working (instructed by the Police Federation)) Judicial Review / Criminal Injuries Compensation Angela has also acted in other proceedings, relating to criminal injuries. For example, she has acted in a Judicial Review in relation to a claimant refused Criminal Injuries Compensation where contributory negligence was deducted. AS, Petitioner [2013] CSOH 83; 2013 G.W.D. 22-422 Decisions by the First Tier Tribunal, Criminal Injuries Compensation, reducing an award of compensation by 40 per cent after having considered the applicant’s conduct before, during or after the relevant incident, would be reduced and remitted to a differently constituted tribunal where the tribunal’s approach was deficient. Judicial Review (Criminal Injuries Compensation Claim) Angela has also acted in other proceedings, relating to criminal injuries. For example, she has acted in a Judicial Review in relation to a claimant refused Criminal Injuries Compensation where contributory negligence was deducted. AS, Petitioner [2013] CSOH 83; 2013 G.W.D. 22-422 Decisions by the First Tier Tribunal, Criminal Injuries Compensation, reducing an award of compensation by 40 per cent after having considered the applicant’s conduct before, during or after the relevant incident, would be reduced and remitted to a differently constituted tribunal where the tribunal’s approach was deficient. Angela also undertakes travel claims including many contractual claims brought under the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992/3288. Clinical Negligence Angela has built up a well-deserved reputation in this area. The Directories refer to her being "calm, detailed and well prepared in court, with excellent negotiation skills" as well as “trustworthy, reliable and quick-witted.” Some of her cases are: Anderson v Lothian Health Board [2018] This clinical negligence claim was finally resolved after many years. It was a claim against a world-renowned Consultant Orthopeadic Surgeon, involving delay in surgery; negligence during the procedure itself; and failure to adequately review post-surgery. After a number of years, the treatment to resolve ongoing issues resulted in the client having a stroke. There were significant issues around negligence; causation and quantum. This was a high value claim, including claims for future wage loss and future care. Brits v Kilcoyne & Co [2017] CSOH 24; & see [2017] CSIH 47 This was a professional negligence claim against solicitors who had failed to raise an action before the expiry of the triennium. This was a debate at the instance of the pursuer before Lady Stacey. The pursuer argued that the defenders’ pleadings in relation to waiver were irrelevant. The defenders sought an evidential hearing. The defenders’ pleadings did not offer to prove that a statement by the employer's insurer in the early stages of litigation that the employer would not take a plea of time bar amounted to a unilateral promise or a waiver of the employer's right to later take that plea, and its averments relating to waiver were deleted from probation. McLean v Argyll & Clyde Acute Hospitals NHS Trust [2017] The account for this clinical negligence claim proceeded to the Auditor of the Court of Session in relation to the fees charged by counsel which was challenged in the Inner House. Angela was instructed to represent the interests of the Faculty of Advocates who were granted permission to intervene. This reclaiming motion involved novel and important questions of the role of the Auditor, breaches of natural justice, the balance between the duties of counsel in relation to the cab rank rule, what the Court expects of counsel in respect of the preparation to examine expert witnesses and the recovery of judicial expenses. Reid v Forth Valley Health Board [2016] This medical negligence claim proceeded under Chapter 42A procedure and involved a lengthy proof in March 2016. The case was about the death of a husband and father due to the alleged negligence of a nurse and a junior A&E doctor who made repeated unsuccessful attempts to reposition a displaced tracheostomy. As a result, the deceased went into cardiac arrest and died. There were separate claims against the nurse and the doctor in relation to their responsibilities and actions and experts on both sides. The family (the widow and son) claimed for loss of society/loss of support/services etc. and also a secondary victim claim for psychiatric injury (nervous shock) as a result of witnessing the deceased in the immediate aftermath. Mediation Arbitration/Mediation (ADR) These proceedings are confidential, but Angela has been instructed both as counsel representing the parties to an arbitration and as an Arbitrator. A list of her cases is available on demand. Publications She has also published extensively on the subject, including: Parratt, D.R., and Grahame, A., ‘Scotland’: (eds: Mistelis, Shore, Ribeiro), World Arbitration Reporter, 2nd Ed., (Juris Publishing, 2018) Grahame, A., Recognition & Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in the United Kingdom, The Journal of Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, (2018), Vol. 1, No: 1, page 41. Grahame, A., & Parratt, D.R., The Recognition and Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards: Is there a “Pro-Enforcement Bias” in the English Courts?: The Journal of Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, (2019), Vol. 2 (forthcoming) Grahame, A., Chapter Contribution to: ‘Women Pioneers in Dispute Resolution’, 2nd Edition, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (2018). Grahame, A., Multi-Tiered Dispute Resolution Clauses Requiring Mediation or “Friendly Discussions” - What Does That Mean? (2019) (forthcoming) Grahame, A., Conflicts of Interest and the Removal of Arbitrators on the Basis of Bias, (2019) (forthcoming) Parratt, D.R., Foreman, P., & Grahame, A., The Scottish Arbitration Handbook (2nd ed.) (commissioned, 2020) Angela was invited to give evidence before the Justice Committee, Scottish Parliament (2018). Their report of 1 October 2018 references her contribution to the discussion on Dispute Resolution methods. Read the report here

Anthony Bingham

nthony Bingham (Tony) is a specialist in Building & Civil Engineering litigation, arbitration, adjudication and alternative dispute resolution. Tony is a practising barrister, arbitrator, adjudicator and mediator. He joined 3PB in 1991. Construction and Engineering Tony Bingham is a practising barrister, arbitrator, adjudicator and mediator. He joined 3PB in 1991. Litigation His main practice is Building and Civil Engineering in the nature of the Technology & Construction Court. Arbitration Became a Fellow of Chartered Institute of Arbitration in 1981 up until 2021 and now has significant experience as a sole Arbitrator and as President of 3-member tribunals. His arbitral appointments outside of UK include Sweden, West Indies and East Africa. Most appointments are for Civil Engineering & Building disputes since Tony Bingham is dual qualified being a Chartered Surveyor, Chartered Builder and practising Barrister. Adjudication Tony Bingham has been appointed to well over 100 Adjudication disputes. He is a member of the following nomination panels: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Chartered Institute of Building Institution of Chemical Engineers TeCSA Construction Industry Council Adjudication.co.uk He will accept appointments as adjudicator as a Member of a Dispute Resolution Board. Mediation In recent years this dispute management system has become another important part of Tony Bingham’s practice. Publications Weekly legal columnist in ‘Building’ since 1987.

Antonia Jameson

Antonia Jameson is a barrister specialising in personal injury, clinical negligence and inquests. Her practice encompasses advocacy and advisory work, for both claimants and defendants. She is experienced in all stages of litigation, from pre-action advice and drafting, to trial. She undertakes personal injury work in a wide variety of areas including occupiers' liability, employers' liability and public liability disputes. She has represented parties in claims for fatal accidents, industrial disease, chronic pain and permanent physical injury. She returned to chambers in October 2021, having spent 12 years away from the Bar as a full-time mother. She has always represented a wide variety of clients, appearing in an array of judicial forums, including the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Antonia has always had a robust, tenacious yet adaptable advocacy style. She will practice from 3PB’s Bournemouth office, but her caseload will – and did – cover the whole of the UK. Antonia lives in Dorset, close to the sea, with her husband and three young children. Her passions are the sea, walking, skiing, family and friends.

Arthur Blake

In the course of his career Arthur Blake has been recognised by the Legal 500 as a leading Junior at the Bar in the field of Administration Law. During his practice he has developed comprehensive experience in all areas of Common Law with particular emphasis on Judicial review in the field of Immigration and Prison Law. Arthur has also extensive experience in the area of criminal appeals. Between 2005-2010 Arthur acted exclusively for the former Qatari Secretary of State for Art Culture and Heritage, Sheikh Saud Bin Mohammed Bin Ali Al-Thani. Arthur was responsible for conducting negotiations between the Attorney General of Qatar and the Sheikh in respect of a multi-million pound dispute. Arthur also advised the Sheikh in respect of satellite litigation arising out of the dispute concerning various individuals and auction houses. Arthur has regularly appeared in the High Court, Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. Arthur was appointed as a fee paid Immigration judge in 1995. Administrative and Public Law Arthur Blake offers expertise in a broad range of civil law, and specifically advises and represents clients in criminal appeals, judicial reviews, immigration and prison law. Parole and Prison Law cases include: R V Home Secretary, ex parte Zulfikar (No1)(1996) COD 256 (QBD) - a locus classicus on the principles of Parole. R v Ex parte McLeod [2002] EWHC 390 - Principles on disclosure in categorisation of prisoners. Potter Kavanagh, Vickers and Gorman AVCSSHD (2002) AC27 - concerning incentives and earned privileges for convicted prisoners in denial. Challenging a sentence plan for a whole life tariff prisoner where it includes a requirement that they should complete a Sexual Offenders Treatment Programme despite the fact that such a prisoner is in denial of the index offences and therefore is ineligible to undertake the course. Seeking to argue that such a target is prima facie perverse where the prisoner is ineligible for release at any stage of the sentence and the effect of failure to comply with the sentence plan precludes the prisoner from advancing under the prisons enhanced earnings and privileges scheme. Whether on the peculiar facts of such a case such treatment engages Article 5 or 6 and 8 of ECHR. R V Secretary of State, ex parte Lockhart and Davies (2003) - Obtained permission to seek Judicial Review of the process of “slopping out” as being in breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Shrimpton V the Secretary of State for the Home Department (IAT) - Appeal engaging correct principles to be applied in removal and/or deportation cases involving Articles 8 of the ECHR. In particular, the burden of proof placed on the Secretary of State as Appellant, when appealing a decision from an adjudicator who has allowed an appeal on the basis of evidence that was not before the Secretary of State at the time of his decision. Correct approach with reference to re “M” (Croatia). Laiji V SHHD - Extent of delay on the part of a decision maker in arriving at a decision when he is considering removal from the UK and the relationship between the delay and Article 8 Proportionality. Raza V SSHD - Extent to which delay is relevant when considering an application for leave to remain in the UK outside of the Immigration Rules and with reference to Home Office discretionary policy on Article 8 Cases. The relevance of evidence of rehabilitation in a convicted foreign national when considering the reasonableness of deportation on the grounds that such removal is conductive to the public good. SSHD V Rehman (2001) UKHL 47 - First Special Immigration Appeal Commission (SIAC) case on the meaning of the term National Security. Richards V National Probation Service - The extent to which the probation service can require compliance with instructions from individuals carrying out community orders/sentences. Court ruling that existing probation service rules and guidance in excess of the law. Secretary of State & The Governor of HMVP Full Sutton V Cannan - Whether a prisoner serving a whole life tariff should be denied enhanced status under prisons incentives and earned privileges scheme by not undertaking offending work addressed at rehabilitation. Shrimpton V Secretary of State for Justice - JR concerning the test to be applied in respect of a minister’s duty to provide offending behaviour courses to prisoners to improve their overall prospects of obtaining early release. Judgement considered the extent to which resources are to be considered when undertaking the balancing exercise under Article 8 (2) ECHR. R (De Vietter) V Chief Constable Thames Valley - Case concerning the duties placed on a Chief Constable to check accuracy and validity of information held on police records regarding a previous allegation of criminal sexual behaviour as opposed to a conviction when and before disclosing the same as being “relevant”, to a prospective employer pursuant to an enhanced criminal record disclosure. Review of test of relevance in context of Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise. R (Louis) V Ealing Magistrates’ Court - Review of Justice of Procedure of Committal to Prison for Non Payment of Fines imposed by the Crown Court and Activation of Sentence of Imprisonment in Default. Meaning of “wilful refusal” to pay. Further review of Magistrates’ Court practice of allocating part payments towards costs before fine elements of sentence; whether permissible and/or lawful as increases risk of imprisonment and therefore engages the liberty of subject issues. Djakija V Secretaty of State (2003) EWCA 1394 - Challenge to removal directions of a Kosovan national re: sufficiency of protection and burden of proof. Caetano & Riordan V Governors of H.M.P. Whitemoor & Secretary of State (2004) - Challenge to retrospective imposition of policy on status of current categorization. Noye V Governor of H.M.P. Whitemoor & Secretary of State (2004) - Challenge to conditions in special secure units (SSU) re: Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Permission granted and SSU closed down at HMP Whitemoor. Noye v Minister for Justice (2017) - Challenge to Ministers refusal to follow advice of Parole Board. Jonathan King V CCRC - Seeking a review of the CCRC decision, in particular putting forward the argument that a late change in amending dates in an Indictment can prejudice a fair trial within the scope of Article 6 ECHR. Public and Regulatory Disciplinary Tribunals Arthur has acted in numerous cases before professional bodies disciplinary tribunals. He recently acted in a case before the disciplinary panel of The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. He successfully argued that the procedure followed engaged both the Rules of Natural Justice and the ECHR. He obtained a stay of the proceedings on the basis of abuse due to delay. Inquest Inquest Kate Peyton (2005) - Acted for the family of BBC journalist Kate Peyton who was shot dead on news assignment in Mogadishu. Coroners verdict led to advice to BBC on contracts concerning assignment of journalists to world danger areas.

Ben Amunwa

Overview Ben Amunwa helps a vast range of clients resolve complex education, employment and public law disputes. He takes instructions in strategic cases that often raise technical points of law, public interest considerations and commercially sensitive issues. He joined 3PB in March 2024 and became chambers' 250th barrister. Ben’s analytical approach and integrity have earned him high esteem across his practice areas. He is driven by achieving positive outcomes for all his clients. Ben has secured numerous central government policy reversals, positively affecting the lives of thousands. In the landmark case of DMA & Others v SSHD [2021] 1 W.L.R. 2374, Ben represented a severely disabled claimant and successfully established a ‘duty to monitor’ the performance of third-parties in high value public sector contracts. In his education practice, he helps families, schools and local authorities ensure the right provision and adjustments are made for children and young people. In employment and commercial, he advises senior executives, regulated professionals and start-ups to navigate legal risk. Ben is an innovative and helpful collaborator who brings expertise across several disciplines and is often able to anticipate and address points that others miss, such as in equalities or data protection law. Where necessary, he develops novel arguments and tests legal boundaries. He is currently acting in an unprecedented test case before the Court of Appeal for 90 families seeking damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 for being subjected to an unlawful government policy. Publications Ben features on his Law Mostly Blog and is the author of "High Court declares Home Office may grant migrants access to benefits on any visa type (PA and NA (by her litigation friend and mother PA) v SSHD)", "Immigration bail (Practice notes)", "Illegal working: dealing with employees (published by Lexis Nexis PSL) and "Supporting Migrant Workers: rights-based approaches"(published by Law Centres Network). Education Ben Amunwa has extensive experience in resolving education law disputes that span early years to higher education settings. He provides advice and representation on admissions, exclusions, SEN, discrimination, judicial reviews, transport, school complaints and OIA matters, as well as teachers’ regulation and civil claims. Ben’s clients include local authorities, families, university students, and national teachers’ unions. Since 2014, Ben has appeared regularly in SENDIST appeals (including multi-day extended appeals and onward appeals to the Upper Tribunal). He has acted in complex appeals with Exceptional Case Funding. Ben is adept at expert witness handling and is able to support teams of professional witnesses with ease. Ben is a well-established SEN practitioner who focuses on finding the right solutions for the children and young people. His accessible and collegiate approach to SEN hearings has been praised by principal educational psychologists and instructing solicitors alike. He provides seamless additional support where matters escalate into judicial reviews, complaints or human rights damages claims. Ben is also a prolific trainer who enjoys engaging individuals, educators and local authority professionals in understanding and applying the framework of law, policy and judicial learning in the education sector. He recently published a 45-page manual providing an introduction to SEN and education law. Employment and discrimination Ben Amunwa is an experienced employment lawyer who advises and assists employers and employees on grievances, disciplinary matters, dismissals, discrimination, sexual harassment, whistleblowing, business transfers, wages and holiday disputes, union matters and modern slavery. Ben has conducted complex trials in person and remotely via video-link, including several 15-day discrimination, victimisation and whistleblowing trials cases involving thousands of pages of evidence and multiple witnesses. Ben’s experience includes settlement negotiations, drafting (employment contracts, internal policies and pleadings) and representation in Tribunals, civil courts and before regulatory panels. He primarily focuses on the corporate, legal and public sectors but also accepts instructions from other fields or industries. He provides practical and strategic advice, negotiation skills and effective representation at preliminary hearings, multi-day trials and appeals. Owing to the breadth of Ben’s practice, clients often request him when atypical points arise, such as wasted costs, self-incrimination, breaches of disclosure duties, data protection or immigration issues. Unusually, he has cross-examined numerous solicitors (including partners at magic circle law firms) in his employment trials, as well as questioning executive witnesses over sexual harassment allegations. Ben has given training to employment law practitioners and has written an acclaimed guidebook for the Law Centres Network on employment rights (described by a Head of Employment as “incredibly useful and thorough”), plus many articles and blogs. Administrative and Public Law Ben Amunwa is frequently instructed in urgent, high-profile and complex public law matters for individuals, NGOs (such as The Unity Project and LIBERTY) and local authorities. He has acted in high-profile, cutting-edge litigation. Several of his recent cases have been reported in the national media. Ben has a track-record of successfully deploying equality law points in judicial review proceedings. Working closely with committed teams of solicitors and other colleagues, he has helped achieve life-changing outcomes for some of his clients, often obtaining urgent court orders for interim relief and substantial settlements or awards of compensation. Ben enjoys a good reputation before the Administrative Court and is undaunted by heavyweight opponents. He has appeared in cases that concern the application of international law, rights derived from Treaties as well as domestic statutory interpretation and issues of constitutional and fundamental rights. Ben regularly assists on matters of international law, extraterritorial jurisdiction, fundamental rights, detention, discrimination, statutory duties and costs. He maintains an interest in child rights and education law challenges (including special educational needs cases). He has published many articles and blog posts on these topics. Ben assists individuals and public sector clients on information law, privacy and data protection matters. He has acted for claimants and defendants in numerous damages claims involving unauthorised disclosure of personal data and breaches of human rights, (including vicarious liability claims). Ben has advised and represented clients in information rights appeals in the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber), including appeals concerning legal advice privilege, historic protection arrangements for the Royal Family and Cabinet Ministers and intelligence concerning the analysis of criminal offence data. Notable recent cases TG, MN, HAA & MJ v SSHD (2024): acting for a lead Claimant in a systemic challenge to the re-purposing of RAF Wethersfield as asylum support accommodation and related policies. Instructed by DPG. Smith v SSHD (2024): acting for a proposed intervenor in a constitutional challenge to the compatibility of the new criminal offence in section 60C of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 with the ECHR. Led by Tim Buley KC. Instructed by LIBERTY. MN, ZR & others v (1) SSHD (2) SSD (3) SSFCDA (4) The Prime Minister (2023): representing lead claimants in a challenge to the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy. Proceedings led to a large-scale urgent evacuation of Afghan citizens from Pakistan to the UK. Case widely reported in the Independent and BBC News. Led by Tom de la Mare KC. Instructed by Deighton Pierce Glynn (‘DPG’). PA & NA (by her litigation friend and mother PA) v SSHD [2023] EWHC 2476 (Admin): SoS’s ‘no recourse to public funds’ (‘NRPF’) policy declared unlawful for misdirecting caseworkers on the exercise of their statutory discretion. SoS produced a new policy in response. Led by Alex Goodman KC. Instructed by DPG. R (HA & Ors) v SSHD [2023] EWHC 1876 (Admin): correct interpretation of regulation 10A of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 payments to pregnant women and children under 3, while accommodated in contractor-run hotels. Systemic delays and breaches of the statutory duty to provide asylum support quickly. Led by Zoe Leventhal KC. Instructed by DPG. Home Office v ASY & Ors [2023] EWHC 196 (KB): scope and content of the ECHR Article 3 duty to avoid the inhuman and degrading treatment by reason of destitution. On appeal to the Court of Appeal. Led by Alex Goodman KC. Instructed by DPG. Training/Conferences Ben is also a prolific trainer and conference chair and speaker whose recent engagements have included: Chair at Public Law Project’s event on ‘Challenging unfairness in the immigration system’ Chair and speaker at ‘Asylum support in the cost of living crisis’ Speaker at Public Law Project’s Advanced Judicial Review conference on ‘Systemic legal challenges’

Caroline Stone

Overview A highly-experienced barrister: dedicated and incisive with an excellent ‘bedside manner’ Caroline Stone’s practice focuses on public law with a particular expertise in national security litigation and a developing practice in education law. She also has significant experience of employment cases. Caroline is an accomplished advocate and acts on behalf of a diverse range of clients, including individuals, companies and a variety of public authorities. She is frequently instructed in complex matters raising issues of public importance, including human rights challenges, and has appeared before the Court of Appeal and High Court, in addition to various specialist Tribunals and the County Court. She is a member of the Attorney General’s B Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown, having previously been appointed to the C Panel. Notable cases include: In the matter of Russian sanctions - advice regarding Ukraine-related designations and closed material procedures under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. R (Sarkandi, Nabipour and Ors) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2015] EWCA Civ 687, [2016] 3 All E.R. 837 - the leading appellate authority on s.6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the use of ‘closed material’ in civil proceedings. Z, Y, U, W, BB, PP and G v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 9 - protracted litigation regarding the continued feasibility of HMG’s Deportation with Assurances policy (proposed deportations of suspected terrorists to Algeria). In the matter of an Academy - advising the Department for Education in a high-profile case concerning the potential termination of an Academy’s funding as a result of poor governance and failure to comply with the Independent School Standards (in particular, provisions relating to safeguarding and the need to promote community cohesion, including concerns about extremism and radicalisation). Caroline is a founding and Assistant Editor of and contributor to the leading practitioner’s textbook National Security: Law, Practice and Procedure (Oxford University Press, March 2021). Caroline’s meticulous attention to detail, tenacity, pragmatic advice and personable approach are among her key strengths. These skills are of particular value in the protracted, multi-party (claimant and/or defendant) cases in which she is often instructed, especially those involving substantial documentation. Complementing her domestic practice in public law and human rights, Caroline also has extensive experience of international law and foreign jurisdictions. Whilst working at the War Crimes Chamber of the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sarajevo) prior to joining 3PB, Caroline’s caseload included Bosnia’s first genocide trial relating to a massacre at Srebrenica. In 2012, she was a Judicial Assistant to the Appeals Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (based in The Hague), dealing with appeals arising from the conviction of Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia. In late 2011, as a Pegasus Scholar, Caroline undertook a 2-month secondment at the Legal Resources Centre, Cape Town, one of South Africa’s pre-eminent public-interest law clinics. In 2009, Caroline was nominated for a Bar Pro Bono Award for her involvement in R (Compton) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust [2008] EWCA Civ 749, 1 WLR 1436 (a leading Court of Appeal authority on protective costs orders, the predecessor to cost-capping orders), for which she and her co-Counsel received a special commendation from the judging panel. In her downtime, Caroline has a passion for singing and photography. Public and Regulatory Caroline has a broad public law practice, encompassing judicial review, statutory appeals, hearings before quasi-judicial bodies (e.g. regulatory panels) and civil matters with a public law element. As an experienced member of the Attorney General’s Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown in civil matters (since 2011), she is regularly instructed by a variety of central government departments and agencies, including the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence and Ofsted. Caroline’s ability to present complex legislative and policy frameworks in a clear, intelligible fashion particularly lends itself to this area of law; so too, her aptitude for identifying and advising on novel points of law. Having observed public law cases from both sides of the spectrum, Caroline is alive to the unique challenges of litigating both for and against public authorities, in particular the need for timely advice which takes into account both wider policy implications and the unknown variables often associated with such cases. Other public law experience Prior to being called to the Bar, Caroline gained extensive experience of public law and human rights issues whilst working at the pioneering legal charity, the Public Law Project (‘PLP’). As a Legal Intern (2005), she advised on diverse matters including the powers of the DVLA; support for ‘looked after’ children; and challenging the decision of an NHS Primary Care Trust regarding the provision of elective plastic surgery. In 2006, Caroline worked as a researcher on the The Dynamics of Judicial Review Litigation, a Nuffield Foundation-sponsored study into the mechanics of judicial review, in particular the permission stage, undertaken by the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex and PLP. As part of this research, Caroline interviewed dozens of solicitors - working for central and local government, leading private firms and NGOs - about specific judicial review applications covering all the core areas of public law. International Law and Human Rights Caroline’s work in various foreign jurisdictions complements her domestic public law and human rights practice. Appeals Chamber, Special Court for Sierra Leone, The Hague (2012) - as a Judicial Assistant (P3), Caroline worked on the preliminary appellate proceedings arising from the conviction of Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia, for his role as an accessory to war crimes and crimes against humanity in neighbouring Sierra Leone. This work involved complex legal research, drafting and case-analysis. Visiting Pegasus Scholar, Legal Resources Centre, Cape Town (Autumn 2011) - a privileged opportunity to work at the ‘coal face’ of public interest law in South Africa, encompassing a variety of public law and constitutional challenges. Caroline’s work ranged from assisting with asylum seeker and refugee appeals to advising on the constitutionality of proposed legislation which purported to restrict access to sensitive state information and criminalise ‘whistle-blowing’ in the security sector. War Crimes Chamber, State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo (2007) - as a Judicial Assistant, Caroline drafted procedural and substantive decisions, including a major judgment in a case involving crimes against humanity (Tanasković, X-KRŽ-05/165) and a procedural decision concerning the legitimate use of pre-trial confessions as evidence and the scope of the right to silence. Caroline’s caseload included Bosnia’s first domestic trial for genocide relating to the murder of over 1000 individuals at the Kravica Farming Cooperative warehouse near Srebrenica. Published Articles “The South African ‘Secrecy Bill’: taking stock”, Constitutionally Speaking, 8 June 2012 and UK Human Rights Blog (abridged version), 24 June 2012 “Corner House Revisited: The Law Governing Protective Costs Orders”, [2009] JR 43 National Security, Counter-Terrorism and International Relations Caroline is a specialist in national security litigation, including cases with an international relations dimension. She is frequently instructed by various central government departments in complex and sensitive matters across the range of such cases. In addition to in-depth knowledge of the subject-matter, Caroline brings to this field an aptitude for mastering technical detail and distilling key points from vast swathes of information; a responsive approach, necessary to tackle the rapid developments or unexpected occurrences which frequently arise in such litigation (whether legal, factual or policy-related); and an ability to work collaboratively and effectively with the range of clients often involved. Caroline’s background in international law and foreign jurisdictions has also proved invaluable to her practice in this area. Caroline’s experience encompasses: Immigration measures taken on national security grounds, including deportations (and ‘deportation with assurances’), deprivations (Al Jedda v SSHD) and exclusions. SIAC immigration bail: - Resisting the grant of bail and making applications to revoke bail (involving consideration of Arts. 5 and 8 ECHR) - Variation of bail conditions - Advisory work regarding the scope of SIAC’s bail powers Civil damages claims, e.g. arising from allegations of misfeasance in public office or false imprisonment. Financial sanctions and travel bans (UK, UN and EU sanctions regimes). Removal of individuals’ passports in the exercise of the royal prerogative to prevent travel (typically to ISIL-controlled territory) for terrorist-related purposes, e.g. XH v SSHD; TH v SSHD; AS v SSHD; KCM and Ors v SSHD. Terrorism Prevention Investigation Measures (‘TPIMs’), e.g. SSHD v JM & Ors (s.9 review relating to TPIM notices served against three members of Al-Muhajiroun). Inquests involving issues of national security concern and sensitive material. Procedural matters, for example: - Anonymity applications - Testimonial immunity of non-parties - W & Ors reverse confidentiality order - Complex disclosure issues (raising Art. 6 ECHR issues) Executive action taken in the education sphere due to concerns about radicalisation and extremism, e.g. termination of government funding (please see Caroline’s Education profile for further details). Cases of note include: O3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department A complex deportation and asylum appeal before SIAC (consideration of Arts. 3 and 8 ECHR) (sole junior, led by Jonathan Glasson QC). Bail: [2019] UKSIAC SC_147_2018: successfully resisting O3’s application for bail despite his detention for over 2 years at the date of the hearing. Khaled, Abdulrahim, Maftah and Ors v The Security Service and Ors Tortious claims for misfeasance in public office and conspiracy to injure in relation to sanctions measures imposed by the UN 1267 Committee, pursuant to the claimants’ nominations by the UK as individuals associated with Al Qaida (alleged reliance by the UK on torture-tainted detainee evidence) (led by Rory Phillips QC and, later, Kate Grange QC). These claims form part of a broader action - Kamoka and Ors v The Security Service and Ors (12+ claimants) - and are linked to the Bel Haj litigation (allegations of collusion in the extraordinary rendition and mistreatment of a senior LIFG commander). R (Khaled) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; R (Maftah) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs - associated judicial reviews by which the claimants sought to challenge various decisions of the Foreign Secretary and others related to their designation (led by Kate Grange QC). R (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission Judicial review of SIAC’s decision not to amend the terms of a W & Ors reverse confidentiality order to enable HMG personnel to access material served in previous SIAC proceedings (sole junior, led by Robin Tam QC). Z, Y, U, W, BB, PP and G v Secretary of State for the Home Department - protracted litigation regarding the continued feasibility of HMG’s Deportation with Assurances policy (proposed deportations of suspected terrorists to Algeria) (latterly as senior junior, led by Robert Palmer). Court of Appeal, [2015] EWCA Civ 9: correct legal test to be applied when considering a breach of Art.3 ECHR on return to a non-Convention State (e.g. regarding prison conditions). SIAC, remitted appeal, 18 April 2016: legality of the DWA arrangements (including informal verification methods), in particular in light of ‘reverse-closed’ evidence submitted by the appellants. R (Sarkandi, Napibour and Ors) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2015] EWCA Civ 687, [2016] 3 All E.R. 837; [2014] EWHC 2359 (Admin) - the leading appellate authority on s.6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the use of ‘closed material’ in civil proceedings. The underlying judicial review related to the Foreign Secretary’s decision to propose five individuals alleged to be senior members of the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines for EU sanctions (interplay between domestic and EU processes leading to the imposition and annulment of sanctions). Inquests related to the Stalker-Sampson Inquiry (McKerr and Ors) Advising as to disclosure obligations (including re. LPP) in ‘legacy’ inquests relating to the controversial deaths of nine individuals in Northern Ireland during The Troubles and associated allegations of a ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy on the part of the British Army and Royal Ulster Constabulary. L1 v Secretary of State for the Home Department Statutory review and appeal by an individual deprived of British nationality and subsequently excluded from the UK (whether the decision to wait until the appellant was outside the country to deprive him of his citizenship was an abuse of process) (latterly as sole junior led by Jonathan Glasson QC). Al Rawi & Ors v The Security Service & Ors Multi-party civil litigation arising from the detention of individuals at Guantanamo Bay and Coalition facilities, raising complicated issues of disclosure and international human rights and humanitarian law. This work was undertaken, in part, during a six-month secondment to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Publications and lectures Caroline is a founding and Assistant Editor of the forthcoming practitioner’s textbook National Security: Law, Practice and Procedure (Oxford University Press, early 2021). In addition to her editorial role, Caroline authored/co-authored: Chapter 4 – Powers of the Security and Intelligence Agencies (Topics covered by this chapter include the interception of legally-privileged communications under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016) Chapter 7 - Executive Measures and Civil Proceedings: Common Evidential and Procedural Issues (Topics covered by this chapter include costs in cases involving closed proceedings and anonymity and reporting restrictions) Chapter 14 – Civil Proceedings: General (CMPs under the JSA 2013; Public Interest Immunity; jurisdictional bars, including state immunity and justiciability) Caroline regularly provides training to civil servants regarding civil litigation in the national security sphere, covering both substantive and procedural issues. Administrative and Public Law Administrative and Public Law cases of note include: Inquests related to the Stalker-Sampson Inquiry (McKerr and Ors) Advising as to disclosure obligations (including re. LPP) in ‘legacy’ inquests relating to the controversial deaths of nine individuals in Northern Ireland during The Troubles and associated allegations of a ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy on the part of the British Army and Royal Ulster Constabulary. In the matter of an Academy Advising the Department for Education in a high-profile case concerning the potential termination of an Academy’s funding as a result of poor governance and failure to comply with the Independent School Standards (in particular, provisions relating to safeguarding and the need to promote community cohesion, including concerns about extremism and radicalisation). Syed & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 196 (sole junior) Interpretation of the Immigration Rules: (i) whether ACCA’s Professional Level Qualification was a “UK recognised bachelor or postgraduate degree” qualifying for the award of points under the Tier 1 (Post Study) work route; (ii) role of UK NARIC in assessing the level of non-degree qualifications obtained in the UK. Cattrell v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] EWCA Civ 572 (sole junior) Successfully resisting an appeal by the Secretary of State challenging the award of Incapacity Benefit, in exceptional circumstances, to an individual who had severe allergy (interpretation of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations 1995). R (Compton) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust [2009] EWHC 1824 (Admin), [2010] P.T.S.R. (C.S.) 5 Judicial review of a PCT’s decisions regarding the closure of hospital facilities. Key issues included (i) the lawfulness of the consultation process and (ii) the principles governing the apparent bias of advisors to public authorities. [2008] EWCA Civ 749, 1 W.L.R. 1436 (assisted during pupillage) One of the leading Court of Appeal authorities on protective costs orders, the predecessor to cost-capping orders: guidance on (i) the criteria and procedure for making and setting aside protective costs orders and (ii) the scope of the “general public importance” test. SFO v Lexi Holdings Plc (In administration) [2008] EWCA Crim 1443, [2009] Q.B. 376 Drafting submissions for this crucial Court of Appeal case determining the scope of the amended ‘legislative steer’ contained in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Other examples of Caroline’s work in this field include: Advising as to the legality of a European Arrest Warrant issued against an individual residing in Cyprus (interpretation of the Child Abduction Act 1984). Advising former police officers in relation to challenging decisions taken by the Police Medical Appeal Board (receipt of injury awards/pensions). Representing a Councillor accused of breaching the Code of Conduct before his local Standards Committee and thereafter appealing to the First Tier Tribunal (allegations of bullying and breaching provisions regarding respect for others; whether actions undertaken in Councillor’s “official capacity”). Advising on and/or appearing in judicial reviews and other public law matters on behalf of HMRC and the former UK Border Agency, e.g. arising from condemnation hearings or other enforcement action. In her early years of practice, Caroline gained significant experience of asset forfeiture law, including civil recovery and restraint proceedings. Cases included advising the former Serious Organised Crime Agency as to the merits of pursuing civil recovery following a failed prosecution in relation to a £6 million fraud. Please see Caroline’s National Security profile for further details of her judicial review, public law and human rights expertise. Public Inquiries Though she has yet to gain direct experience of Public Inquiry work, Caroline has had cause to consider Inquiry materials in the course of her national security cases, e.g. the Stalker/Sampson Inquiry (deaths in Northern Ireland during The Troubles) and the Detainee Inquiry, led by Sir Peter Gibson. She also has significant experience of protracted, multi-party litigation, usually involving multiple government departments and invariably requiring management of significant disclosure exercises. Caroline is keen to further develop her interest in Public Inquiries and welcomes new instructions in this area. Articles Legislating in the Time of Corona – 3PB Education Newsletter, September 2020 Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law Caroline’s notable regulatory cases include: JC v OFSTED [2011] UKFTT 449 Successfully resisting an appeal against temporary suspension from the register of childminders (safeguarding concerns, including allegations of assault; relevance of concurrent police investigation considered). General Medical Council v Dr A Instructed as a junior in a 6-week prosecution of a consultant before the GMC’s Fitness to Practise Panel (charges of dishonesty and financial misfeasance relating to fertility treatment). In the matter of a Councillor Representing a Councillor accused of breaching the Code of Conduct before his local Standards Committee and thereafter appealing to the First Tier Tribunal (allegations of bullying and breaching provisions regarding respect for others; whether actions undertaken in Councillor’s “official capacity”). In addition to a proven track record in public law, Caroline brings to this area significant experience of disciplinary processes/issues from her employment practice and an understanding of the persuasive advocacy required to ensure the best result for her clients. She is keen to further develop her interest in this field. Education In the course of her public law practice, Caroline has undertaken a range of education-related cases. She is particularly keen to specialise further in Education law and brings to this area not only a wealth of relevant experience from other areas of her practice (e.g. disciplinary issues, discrimination claims and contractual disputes), but also a down-to-earth, considered approach which is particularly well-suited to the sensitive issues and high stakes often at play in education cases. Caroline’s education-related experience to date includes: School admissions (clerking Admission Appeal Panels, including provision of legal advice regarding disability discrimination) School exclusions - Representing a school before an Exclusion Appeal Panel (under the previous regime) - Providing training to local authorities and Independent Review Panel members on legislative changes Judicial review Legal action in respect of Ofsted reports (schools) Appeals against suspension of registration by Ofsted (Early Years and Child Care providers) Governance issues in Academies Safeguarding Prosecutions for non-attendance (under s.444 of the Education Act 1996) Whilst at PLP, Caroline’s education-related work included: Advising on the lawfulness of a University’s disciplinary scheme Advising a teacher about a potential judicial review in relation to a CRB certificate (which disclosed that the teacher had been the victim of a crime) Advice regarding a potential judicial review of a decision to close the (then) last all-male state school in Hackney Cases of note include: R (Dawatul Islam UK and Eire) v OFSTED Successfully resisting a school’s application to judicially review an unfavourable progress monitoring inspection report (breach of the Independent School Standards; consideration of the Prevent Duty). Findings challenged included those relating to the quality of education, the ‘spiritual, moral, social and cultural’ development of pupils, the welfare of students, leadership and Schedule 10 of the Equality Act 2010. In the matter of an Academy The case concerned the potential termination of an Academy’s funding as a result of poor governance and failure to comply with the Independent School Standards (in particular, provisions relating to safeguarding and the need to promote community cohesion, including concerns about extremism and radicalisation). JC v OFSTED [2011] UKFTT 449 Successfully resisting an appeal against temporary suspension from the register of childminders (safeguarding concerns, including allegations of assault; relevance of concurrent police investigation considered). In addition to the matters listed above, Caroline particularly welcomes new instructions in the following areas: SEND appeals Independent Review Panels Internal academic appeals Fitness to Practice hearings (student and Teaching Regulation Agency) Disciplinary and grievance procedures The intersection between national security and education law Higher education cases Please see Caroline’s Public and Regulatory profile for details of other relevant experience. Articles SEND provision beyond 24 September 2020 - a brewing storm? – 3PB Education Newsletter, September 2020 Legislating in the Time of Corona – 3PB Education Newsletter, September 2020 Employment and Discrimination Caroline has significant experience of both advisory work and advocacy in employment law matters. Her cases range from preliminary hearings to substantive multi-day trials, representing the full spectrum of the labour market – from cleaners to hedge fund employees; care home providers to public authority employers (e.g. the Ministry of Justice, DWP and FC&DO). Caroline’s meticulous attention to detail ensures she is always fully conversant with the finer details of her client’s work environment - of particular assistance in relation to industries which are heavily regulated or more technical in nature. Caroline has also advised on the merits of appealing decisions to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Caroline has experience of: Unfair dismissal – including constructive unfair dismissal, gross misconduct and the reasonableness of selection criteria for redundancy Employment status TUPE Unlawful deduction of wages (including bonus schemes) Breach of contract claims Whistleblowing: public interest disclosures relating to health and safety All forms of discrimination claims, including indirect discrimination Equal Pay Act claims Cases of interest include: Acting on behalf of the (former) UK Border Agency in successfully defending a claim for discrimination ‘arising from disability’ brought under the (then) novel provisions of s.15 of the Equality Act 2010 (consideration of the necessary causal link between the impugned conduct and the disability relied upon). Successfully arguing that a school groundsman who had accounted for his own tax and national insurance for over 20 years, had a considerable degree of autonomy in the manner in which work was completed and undertook similar jobs elsewhere as a contractor, was nonetheless an ‘employee’ for the purposes of an unfair dismissal claim. Advising as to whether a Civil Service injury benefit scheme (Ministry of Defence) was indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of age. Advising whether termination of employment in order to prevent a local authority employee accessing his pension amounted to age discrimination. Persuading a Tribunal that despite technical difficulties with its website having prevented a prison governor from submitting his claim online on the final day of the limitation period, it was nevertheless reasonably practicable for him to have presented his claim in time (consideration of (then) new procedural Rules and the validity of incorrectly-submitted applications) Caroline represents both Claimants and Respondents, providing valuable insight into the complexities of the workplace environment and the underlying factors which drive and shape employment litigation. She is alert to the commercial realities which often call for the pragmatic resolution of a case.

Charles Fulton

Overview Charles Fulton is a barrister with 3PB, specialising in personal injury. Prior to moving to the self-employed Bar, Charles worked in health policy, initially as a Policy Officer at the Nursing and Midwifery Council. In this role, he analysed pieces of legislation to provide policy guidance to colleagues, and researched and wrote the organisation’s Strategic Context Report in order to help to develop its long-term strategy. He then worked as a Senior Policy Officer for Diabetes UK, where he was the policy lead for the charity’s work in relation to children and young people. Charles has also undertaken pro bono work for the Free Representation Unit, has mooted at Inner Temple and at BPP University, and has represented Newcastle University at the European Universities’ Debating Championship. In his own time, Charles enjoys travelling, learning languages and visiting museums and art galleries. He speaks upper intermediate level Spanish and intermediate level French. Charles Fulton is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact Charles for a copy of his privacy policy which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may collect about you, or that is provided to him, will be processed by him. He will provide a copy of this policy to you within 2 working days of its request. Personal Injury Charles Fulton is regularly instructed to appear at court on behalf of Claimants and Defendants in a variety of Personal Injury hearings and trials. He has been instructed in the following types of hearing: Fast Track trial Multi Track trial Interim application hearing Hearing of an application for pre-action disclosure before a High Court Master Case Management Conference Costs and Case Management Conference Charles has drafted the following types of paperwork: Infant approval quantum advice Advice on liability and quantum Particulars of Claim Further and Better Particulars Schedule of Loss. Charles is keen to develop a practice in other aspects of personal injury, in particular, product liability claims and travel claims. He is also keen to further develop his busy practice in more Multi-Track personal injury work. Clinical Negligence Charles Fulton is keen to develop a clinical negligence practice and to accept instructions in this area.

Charles Irvine

Overview Charles Irvine is regularly instructed in the Court of Appeal, High Court, County Court and the Tribunals on a range of civil matters covering property, trusts, commercial & insolvency proceedings. He is able to accept instructions on a direct public access basis. Commerical Charles has significant expertise in commercial disputes and contractual and professional negligence cases. He is noted for his expertise in insolvency, in particular, individual bankruptcy and commercial insolvency, including boardroom disputes between directors and shareholders. He also has expertise in commercial disputes concerning contracts, guarantees and sureties. In particular, including: Company litigation Corporate and individual insolvency Partnership Breach of contract Agency Misrepresentation Recent and reported cases: In the matter of M (2023) Charles successfully defended a debtor who was facing bankruptcy in respect of a debt of around £500,000 and in related High Court proceedings concerning a disputed debt of £375,000 arising from a purported breach of and/or the assumption of a company’s debt by a director. S v H (2022) Charles successfully negotiated a sizeable settlement in an unfair prejudice petition brought by his client against a co-director in a quasi-partnership dispute. The underlying dispute raised issues concerning the controlling director’s misappropriation of company assets, breach of fiduciary duties by failing to promote the success of the company and undeclared dividends and salary payments made to the client’s detriment. G P Ltd v C (2021) Charles successfully represented a former employee (C) in getting a High Court claim brought by her former employer (G) dismissed and opposing an interim injunction being entered against her for a purported breach of confidentiality. It was alleged that C obtained G’s commercially sensitive information and passed it onto her new employer. The context was that the G’s former founding director had left G to set up a rival company and C had left G to join him. These proceedings were part of an attempt to obtain information to sustain G’s claim against the former director. In the matter of Sinton European Logistics Ltd (2019) [2019] 2 WLUK 327 Charles successfully represented the liquidator of Sinton European Logistics in a claim brought against the former director of the company that had gone into creditors' voluntary liquidation. The director was liable to pay £20,360 to the liquidator in respect of various payments made, before the company had gone into liquidation, in breach of his fiduciary duty as director. (LTL 22/2/2019 EXTEMPORE: [2019] 2 WLUK 327) Greatbatch v Sirius Marine Service Ltd (Re Rhapsody) [2018] EWHC 4062 (Admlty) Charles successfully brought proceedings in the Admiralty Court in respect of defective workmanship carried out by the Defendant. The case raised issues as to the correct measure of damages for pleasure vessels. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Technosport London Ltd & Agyeton [2016] EWHC 797 (IPEC) High Court trial concerning passing off and trade mark infringement of the BMW word mark and roundel logo. Doctor Associates Inc v Hussain [2014] EWHC 3384 (IPEC) High Court application to set aside default judgment on terms in a passing off case. GHML v Maroo [2012] Led by David Berkley KC of 3PB for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the fiduciary duties owed by directors. Advising a large group of companies on their standard terms and conditions and updating the same in light of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Banking and Finance Regularly instructed on behalf of lenders in a range of contractual and enforcement of security proceedings, especially with guarantee obligations, insolvency and/or property issues. Junior counsel to David Berkley KC of 3PB in a SME mis-selling claim against a large banking group, which settled and was reported in the Sunday Times (2 August 2015). Property and Estates Charles enjoys a busy property practice and his experience includes: Real property, with a focus on trusts of land, proprietary estoppel and the interpretation of deeds. Landlord and Tenant: Commercial and residential landlord and tenant law, including possession, advising on secured and assured tenancies, 1954 Act renewals and forfeiture and surrender Recent and reported cases: Hambling & anor v Wakerly & anor [2023] EWHC 343 (Ch); [2023] All ER (D) 77 (Feb) Charles was successful at both first instance and at appeal in a claim brought against his clients for: (i) interference with a right of way, which was dependant on the interpretation of a transfer; (ii) interference with a right to light; and (iii) proprietary estoppel. Charles won on all issues at first instance. On appeal, the issue centred on whether the interpretation of a right of way and whether there was any “ancillary” use arguments which would benefit a right of way. Again, Charles was successful in opposing the appeal. The case attracted a significant amount of national press interest: https://www.3pb.co.uk/charles-irvine-successful-in-high-profile-neighbours-boundary-dispute/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11788527/Couple-face-160-000-bill-losing-legal-battle-against-monstrous-millionaire-neighbours.html https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/news/effect-of-practical-geographical-realities-when-construing-express-easement-hambling-v-wakerly] Gillbac Ltd v (1) Clinkett & (2) Persons Unknown [2023] Charles successfully represented the Claimant in complex commercial possession proceedings involving the removal of a former business tenant from premises to be sold to developers as part of a £2.8million development. The former tenant took forceable repossession of the site to operate from and refused to leave on the basis that the local council had failed to find alternative premises for him to operate from. The matter attracted a national press interest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fficIWeoP5M https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/bailiffs-trying-evict-london-barber-24735294 https://southwarknews.co.uk/featured/rotherhithe-evicted-small-business-owner-gets-keys-back-and-is-free-to-start-trading-again/ Uddin & Begum v Hussain & Islam [2023] Charles successfully obtained a High Court injunction on behalf of the Claimants to prevent the Defendants (their son and daughter-in-law) from selling a home in which they all lived in. In the substantive claim, the Claimants seek to set aside/void a fraudulent transfer deed which transferred the property into the Claimants’ son’s sole name. The Claimants assert that their son forged for his parents’ signature on the transfer deed. Alternatively, the First Defendant made his parents sign the transfer deed on the basis of a fraudulent misrepresentation and/or as a result of applying undue influence and/or by mistake. Carshalton Beeches Bowling Club Limited v Seaton House School [2020] Charles successfully represented the Defendant, Seaton House School, named Independent Preparatory School of the Year 2018, at a 3 day trial in the County Court at Central London. The claim concerned a business lease renewal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and a claim for a new lease under the principles of proprietary estoppel. The case has attracted news coverage including in The Telegraph, The Times, the Evening Standard and the Daily Mail. Shah & Shah v Greening & Greening [2015] A 2 day trial in the High Court concerning the specific performance of a contract for sale which raised issues of illegality and exceptional hardship. Pressland v Sonigara [2015] A 2 day trial at the County Court at Central London concerning the surrender of a lease by operation of law. Hayatt v Cherwell District Council [2014] First Tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property) appeal against the refusal to revoke an Interim Management Order.

Charlotte Hadfield

Overview Charlotte Hadfield is the Head of 3PB’s Education Team. Her main specialism is in public law, particularly education, health and social care, with a complimentary expertise in employment cases and professional discipline cases arising out of related sectors. Education, health and social care Charlotte accepts instructions across the full spectrum of these interrelated areas, including: SEND appeals (including National Trial cases) Discrimination (including disability discrimination) claims in the FTT and County Court Judicial review, including decisions relating to SEN provision under EHC Plans, education otherwise than at school, continuing healthcare assessments, social care assessments, unlawful exclusions Governance issues in academies and free schools School/parent relationships, including parent bans, internal complaints, protection from harassment Admissions (lawfulness of admissions arrangements, compatibility of admissions arrangements with the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act) Exclusion appeals Legal action in respect of Ofsted and CQC reports (schools, care providers) Appeals against cancellation of registration by Ofsted (Early Years and Child Care providers) Contractual and tortious claims against education providers Safeguarding, DBA (formerly CRB) issues Internal academic appeals and fitness to practice hearings NCTL proceedings (see also Charlotte’s Public and Regulatory profile) Disputes relating to school fees Mental Capacity/Court of Protection Charlotte accepts instructions to appear in the Court of Protection and is well versed in Court of Protection practice and procedure. She is experienced in anticipating and addressing points about capacity that may arise in education, health and care proceedings outside of the Court of Protection, e.g. in relation to young persons in appeals before SENDIST. Charlotte regularly delivers training on the law relating to education, health and social care to a variety of different audiences, including solicitors, local authorities, university student advisors, lay panel members and parents. For Charlotte's education law expertise please see her Education profile. Employment and Discrimination Charlotte is instructed by Claimants and Respondents across the full spectrum of employment law. She has a particular interest in employment cases in the education, health and care contexts and regularly advises on: Unfair dismissal Redundancy Breach of contract/unlawful deductions Working Time Regulations TUPE Discrimination Whistleblowing Equal Pay Breach of Restrictive Covenants Charlotte regularly delivers training on employment law to solicitors and HR professionals. Please see Charlotte's separate Education & Discrimination profile. Professional Discipline Charlotte also regularly accepts instructions in respect of all of the professional regulators, including teachers before the NCTL, regulated healthcare practitioners before the HCPC, GMC, GDC, GOC etc, and solicitors before the SDT. Charlotte also acts for students pursuing qualifications in the regulated sector, whether they are facing action from the external regulator or internal disciplinary action from their course provider. For Charlotte's Disciplinary & Regulatory Proceedings expertise please see her separate profile. Employment and discrimination Charlotte is instructed by Claimants and Respondents across the full spectrum of employment law. She has a particular interest in employment cases in the education, health and care contexts. She regularly advises on the following claims: Unfair dismissal Redundancy Breach of contract/unlawful deductions Working Time Regulations TUPE Discrimination Whistleblowing Equal Pay Breach of Restrictive Covenants She is frequently instructed on behalf of both Respondents and Claimants in complex discrimination/detriment cases, and has extensive experience of cases involving direct/indirect discrimination and/or victimisation and harassment; whistleblowing, equal pay, and detriment to part-time workers. Charlotte has a particular interest in TUPE cases. Charlotte has also represented clients charged with disciplinary offences before professional regulators.  She has particular insight into the operation of disciplinary panels thanks to her experience as a Legal Assessor for the Nursing and Midwifery Council. The crossover between Charlotte’s education practice and her employment practice, means that she is ideally placed to act in employment claims by teachers.  She has extensive experience of acting on behalf of local authorities, schools and teachers in employment claims. On the non-contentious side, Charlotte is available to advise on the drafting and interpretation of contracts of employment, disciplinary and grievance procedures, and compromise agreements. Reported cases: Harris v Academies Enterprise Trust [2015] IRLR 208 EAT (whether employment tribunals are bound by Mitchell case management principles) Morgan Motor Co Ltd v Morgan (2015) UKEAT/0128/15 (factors to be taken into account when considering an application for relief from sanction) Crystal Palace FC Ltd and Anor v Kavanagh & Ors [2014] IRLR 139 CA (whether an administrator can dismiss for an ETO reason) Education Charlotte is passionate about education and enjoys a wide and varied practice covering the full spectrum of education law and related regulatory law.  She is regularly instructed on behalf of parents, young people, students, schools, academies, HE providers, local authorities, universities and Early Years and Child Care providers/practitioners. Her work includes: SEND appeals (including National Trial cases) Discrimination (including disability discrimination) claims in the FTT and County Court Judicial review, including decisions relating to SEN provision under EHC Plans, education otherwise than at school, continuing healthcare assessments, social care assessments, unlawful exclusions Governance issues in academies and free schools School/parent relationships, including parent bans, internal complaints, protection from harassment Admissions (lawfulness of admissions arrangements, compatibility of admissions arrangements with the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act) Exclusion appeals Legal action in respect of Ofsted and CQC reports (schools, care providers) Appeals against cancellation of registration by Ofsted (Early Years and Child Care providers) Contractual and tortious claims against education providers Safeguarding, DBA (formerly CRB) issues Internal academic appeals and fitness to practice hearings NCTL proceedings (see also Charlotte’s Public and Regulatory profile) Disputes relating to school Charlotte regularly provides training on education law to a variety of different audiences, including LEAs, solicitors, university student advisors, lay panel members and parents. Reported cases BA v Nottinghamshire County Council [2021] EWHC 1348 (Admin) (JR) DJ, R (on the application of) v Welsh Ministers & Anor [2018] WLR (D) 646 DS, R(on the application of) v Wolverhampton City Council [2017] ELR 630 SN v Nottinghamshire County Council [2014] UKUT 002 (AAC) Oxfordshire County Council v JL (2010) EWHC 798 (Admin) Mental Capacity/Court of Protection Charlotte accepts instructions to appear in the Court of Protection and is well versed in Court of Protection practice and procedure. She is experienced in anticipating and addressing points about capacity that may arise in education, health and care proceedings outside of the Court of Protection, e.g. in relation to young persons in appeals before SENDIST. Public and Regulatory Charlotte is an expert in all aspects of education law, and in disciplinary and regulatory proceedings. Education Law Charlotte is passionate about education and enjoys a wide and varied practice covering the full spectrum of education law and related regulatory law.  She is regularly instructed on behalf of parents, young people, students, schools, academies, HE providers, local authorities, universities and Early Years and Child Care providers/practitioners. Her work includes: SEND appeals Discrimination (including disability discrimination) claims in the FTT and County Court Judicial reviews Governance issues relating to academies and free schools School/parent relationships, including parent bans, internal complaints, Protection from Harassment Admissions (including infant class size appeals, lawfulness of admissions arrangements, compatibility of admissions arrangements with the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act) Exclusion appeals Appeals by Early Years and Child Care providers and practitioners against cancellation of registration by Ofsted Contractual and tortious claims against education providers Issues relating to safeguarding, CRB, DBA disclosures Internal academic appeals by university students NCTL proceedings (see also Charlotte’s Public and Regulatory profile) School fee disputes Employment Tribunal proceedings (see also Charlotte’s Employment profile) Charlotte regularly provides training on education law to a variety of different audiences, including LEAs, solicitors, university student advisors, lay panel members and parents. Reported cases Oxfordshire County Council v JL [2010] EWHC 798 (Admin) SN v Nottinghamshire County Council [2014] UKUT 002 (AAC) Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law Charlotte accepts instructions in respect of all of the professional regulators, including teachers before the NCTL, regulated healthcare practitioners before the HCPC, GMC, GDC, GOC etc, and solicitors before the SDT. Charlotte also acts for students pursuing qualifications in the regulated sector, whether they are facing action from the external regulator, or internal disciplinary action from their course provider. Charlotte specialised in criminal law for the first 6 years of her practice and has since specialised in education, regulatory and employment law. She has an excellent understanding both of the regulatory/criminal law that governs regulatory proceedings, and of the persuasive advocacy required to achieve the best possible result for her clients. Charlotte is also able to advise clients on associated legal action, e.g. judicial review in respect of publication decisions. Recent work includes: Representing a student nurse facing internal disciplinary action and removal from their nursing degree Representing a solicitor accused by the SRA of misleading the court Representing a solicitor accused by the SRA of failing to act with integrity and compromising client confidentiality Representing a teacher accused by the NCTL of “grooming” a pupil Representing a registered psychologist before the HCPC

Cheryl Jones

Overview Cheryl Jones is a well regarded senior member of the Commercial, Costs and Property & Trusts teams. Her commercial work includes extensive experience of Directors duties, corporate governance as well as detailed analysis of contracts and other documentation. Cheryl is an insolvency specialist, dealing with both personal and corporate insolvencies and related issues. In her Costs practice, she has extensive experience of contested Security for Costs applications, Costs budgeting, non-contentious advisory work and drafting Points of Dispute/Replies, particularly in solicitor/client costs and issues arising from Conditional Fee Agreements. Her probate practice is extensive and she is known for her expertise in dealing with cases which have unusual or cross-border elements, as well as disputes over funeral/burial arrangements. She is a qualified mediator and an Associate Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. She is also a member of the the Bar Pro Bono Unit (Advocate). Cheryl sits as a Recorder in both Civil and Criminal and is also Deputy Insolvency and Companies Judge, sitting in the High Court. Commercial Cheryl Jones is an experienced commercial and traditional chancery barrister with an established High Court practice. Her practice encompasses commercial litigation, company and shareholder disputes, insolvency and trusts disputes. She welcomes instructions in the following areas: Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVA) Injunctions preventing the presentation of a petition Director’s disqualification Transactions at an undervalue and preferences, wrongful trading and misfeasance Applications to set aside statutory demands and bankruptcy petitions Applications by trustees in respect of real property Income Payment Orders (IPO) Third party applications. Cheryl Jones regularly acts on behalf of both applicants and respondents in urgent applications out of court hours and haves particular experience in relation to: Freezing Injunctions Prohibitory injunctions Norwich Pharmacal Orders Search Orders She regularly advises and acts for insolvency practitioners, trustees, creditors and debtors and individuals in relation to a wide variety of matters. Also being a part-qualified accountant, not only gives Cheryl the ability to deal with complicated factual issues as well as the legal complexities, but also the ability to assimilate accounts quickly and efficiently. Recent cases Blackburn v Southwell [2014] EWCA Civ 1347 - a ground breaking claim in proprietary estoppel on behalf of the successful claimant In re Nicholas Christou [2014] EWHC 79 (Ch) - allegations of fraud and forgery against an executor Foxholes Nursing Homes Ltd v Accora Ltd [2013] EWHC 3712 (Ch) - an application to restrain the presentation of a winding up petition Agarwala v Agarwala [2013] EWCA Civ 1763 - appeal in respect of a beneficial interest in a commercial property Duncan v Duncan [2013] EWCA Civ 1407 - a party he had previously represented Hope v Knight [2010] EWHC 3443 (Ch) - Inheritance Act Claim by long-estranged wife and child against estate of husband Representing liquidators against directors in complex claims for misfeasance, transactions at an undervalue and preferences Representing a bankrupt in claims against trustees in bankruptcy who are alleged to have acted against the interest of the bankrupt in the residue of the estate Representing a bankrupt in a disputed Centre of Main Interests petition. Property and Estates Cheryl’s property and private client practice encompasses trusts of land and proprietary estoppel, as well as boundary disputes. She has an extensive knowledge of and practice in probate and trusts issues and has dealt with a number of cases involving disputes over burial arrangements. Cheryl sits in the High Court as a Deputy Insolvency and Companies Court judge, dealing with high value bankruptcies, , as a and as a Specialist Chancery, Civil and Criminal Recorder. She is also a trained mediator. Speaking With a background in lecturing at Westminster University, Cheryl welcomes any opportunity to give talks in all the areas in which she practices. She aims to give clear, precise and uncomplicated talks that are of long term practical use to solicitors, barristers and anyone with an interest in the subject. Her more recent interesting cases include: Agarwala v Agarwala [2016] EWCA Civ 1251; [2017] 1P&CR DG17 - relating to the date from which a trustee in breach of her trust was no longer acting unlawfully; calculations of equitable damages by a trustee and other associated issues In re Castrillon (High Court) (2016) with elements of Colombian law, alleged undue influence and fraud. Settled by way of mediation to client’s satisfaction In re Freud (High Court) (2016), on an intestacy where a brother and sister could not agree the burial arrangements for their deceased mother or the subsequent disposition of the estate In re Kramer (High Court) (2016), a claim by personal representatives for declarations under the Trusts of Land & Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 in conflict with previous decisions of a religious court and need for accounting from executor de son tort. Blackburn v Southwell [2014] EWCA Civ 1247 [2015] 2 FLR 1240 - representing a co-habitee claiming estoppel against her former partner Christou (Pittas v Christou) [2014] EWHC 79 (Ch) - acting for the executor in highly contested claim, subsequently advising on the retention of costs from the Defendant’s inheritance after the Defendant’s bankruptcy Gabitass v Watkins (High Court) (2014), successfully resisting a claim by a stepson for provision from an estate on the grounds that he did not come within the act. In re Agarwala (2014), successfully setting aside two wills on the grounds of forgery and entering Indian will to probate against allegations of malpractice and fraud from the unsuccessful brothers. Duncan v Duncan [2013] EWCA Civ 1407 - appeal against a finding of conflict of interest in relation to a barrister acting for one party against a party he had previously represented. Agarwala v Agarwala [2013] EWCA Civ 1763 - appeal in respect of a beneficial interest in a commercial property. In Re Sanussi - consideration of the laws of intestacy where the deceased had multiple legal wives in Nigeria but had English property to be divided. Many other cases involving advising and bringing claims for undue influence, want of knowledge and approval or incapacity; Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975; to remove executors/personal representatives; property claims by executors/personal representatives. Cheryl believes that strenuous efforts should be made in all cases to settle matters without the need for a trial, and many of her cases do settle at mediation, but she is a fearless advocate for her client when it is clear that no sensible settlement can be reached. Although Cheryl is officially located in the London Office of 3PB, and is particularly well placed to accept instructions in London, she also accepts instructions throughout the Midlands, South East and in Bristol. She is computer literate, providing swift and lucid advices by email if so desired. Mediation Cheryl is an experienced barrister practicing in the areas of Chancery and Family Law and has a practical and down-to-earth approach to all her work, coupled with intellectual rigor. She also sits as a Recorder and a Deputy Insolvency and Companies Judge, sitting in the High Court. Cheryl’s judicial experience, coupled with an ability to think laterally gives her a real advantage when acting as a mediator.  She understands the day to day concerns of the lay client and the sensitivities ADR can bring, and as such is willing to take as much time as is necessary to reach a resolution - at times taking the less travelled path and looking at creative solutions to the apparently insoluble. She is flexible in her approach and appreciates that even in apparently straightforward matters, there may be underlying emotional issues which have to be acknowledged and addressed in order to give the best chance of settling the actual legal issues. In those matters, Cheryl will address and value the emotional issues, without allowing them to get out of hand or to interfere with a sensible settlement. Where the issues are practical or legal, she will seek to assist the parties to look at alternative solutions of ways of solving them. It is her experience that it is often the issues that appear to be trivial which are of greatest importance to one or more of the parties. Cheryl encourages parties to resolve matters in a sensible and workable way, reaching an agreement which is clear and unambiguous. Where necessary she will assist with the drafting of an agreement.

Christopher Aylwin

Overview Christopher Aylwin has over 40 years’ experience in the field of commercial litigation, regularly appearing on behalf of both corporate and private clients. His specialisms include professional negligence and negligent mis-statement in a commercial context, warranty and valuation disputes, partnership disputes, shareholder disputes (including petitions under section 459 of the Companies Act), breaches of trustees’ and directors’ duties and director’s disqualification. He advises on passing off and markets. He advises on technology and construction claims covering all aspects of the field. He has appeared for claimants and defendants in cases concerning defective design, defective work, loss and expense and professional negligence, many of them multi-party. He also frequently represents those accused of professional disciplinary offences and appears regularly before the Disciplinary Tribunals of the ICAEW and the ACCA. Commercial Christopher has over 40 years experience in the field of commercial litigation. He appears regularly on behalf of both corporate and private clients in the Chancery Division, the Queen’s Bench Division and the Technology and Construction Court. He brings to his practice an acute appreciation of the need for strategic thinking in the context of large-scale litigation, as well as an attention to minute detail. He is well-used to organising and assimilating large quantities of documentary evidence. As well as having wide experience in the commercial field, Christopher’s specialisms include professional negligence and negligent mis-statement in a commercial context, warranty and valuation disputes, partnership disputes, shareholder disputes (including petitions under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006, formerly section 459 of the Companies Act 1985), breaches of trustees’ and directors’ duties and director’s disqualification. He also has specialist experience of passing off and markets. Christopher frequently represents those accused of professional disciplinary offences and appears regularly before the Disciplinary Tribunals of the ICAEW and the ACCA. He has lectured on commercial matters, as well as on professional discipline, in Chambers’ seminars and to various firms of solicitors, to the Chancery Bar Association and to the Professional Conduct and Complaints Committee of the Bar Council. Christopher is a member of TECBAR and has wide experience in the Technology and Construction Court. He is also a member of the Chancery Bar Association and the Professional Negligence Bar Association. Recent cases: Seery v Leathes Prior [2017] EWHC 80 (QB) Consideration of the scope of duty owed by a solicitor to his client in the context of a dispute between the directors/shareholders of a private limited company and whether the solicitor had acted in breach of duty in failing to advise his client to seek relief by means of an unfair prejudice petition pursuant to section 994 of the Companies Act 2006. Detailed consideration of expert evidence regarding the method to be applied when valuing the company’s shares. PNH Holdings Europe Limited v Phillips [2016] (Unreported) Examination of the criteria to be applied in an application for pre-action disclosure pursuant to section 33 of the Senior Courts Act and CPR 31.16(3) by one shareholder against the other in a two-shareholder company, based upon allegations of unfair prejudice and alleged breaches of a shareholder agreement between them. Iteshi v Bar Standards Board [2016] EWHC 2943 (Admin) Whether the making of a “restriction of proceedings” order against a non-practising barrister in regard to litigation conducted by him on his own account could amount to “misconduct” in the context of Core Duty 5 (conduct likely to diminish public trust and confidence) of the Bar Handbook. Gallarotti v Sebastianelli [2012] EWCA Civ 865; [2012] Fam Law 1206; [2012] 2 P and CR DG 17 The factors to be taken into account when determining the beneficial interests of parties to a Stack v Dowden/Jones v Kernott common intention constructive trust arising out of a domestic property purchase, where the property had been purchased in the name of one party only and financial contributions to the purchase price were unequal. Lloyds TSB Bank plc v Markandan and Uddin (a firm) [2010] EWHC 2517 (Ch); [2011] PNLR 6; [2011] P and CR DG 11; and [2012] EWCA Civ 65; [2012] 2 AllER 884; [2012] PNLR 20 Rights of a mortgage lender under the terms of a bare trust to recover mortgage monies paid away by its solicitors as the result of a fraud perpetrated on both the solicitors and the mortgage lender by the purported vendors of a property, without any involvement in the fraud on the part of the solicitors. Plumbly v Beatthatquote.com Limited [2009] EWHC 321 QB Refusal of a company to make an allotment of shares under an employee share option agreement, where the claimant was alleged to have acted in repudiatory breach of his contract of employment. Moriarty and Another v Customers of BA Peters plc [2008] EWCA Civ 1604; [2010] BCLC 142; [2009] BPIR 248; [2011] WTLR 1661 The rights of customers of a company in administration whose monies were received by the company prior to administration on trust terms but which were nonetheless used by the company to reduce its indebtedness to its bankers on its overdrawn current account. Moriarty and Another v Customers of BA Peters plc [2008] EWHC 2005 (Ch); [2010] 1 BCLC 110; [2008] BPIR 1180 Dispersal of a brokerage company’s assets by administrators when part of the relevant assets comprised deposit monies received from customers on trust terms, prior to the administration. O’Brien and Another v Dempsey [2008] EWHC 357 (QB) The correct approach to the assessment of the reliability of witnesses in a claim for the recovery of two loans where the existence of the loans was disputed, the loans were not evidenced in writing and they had been made in confusing circumstances. Elvee Limited v Taylor and Others [2001] EWCA Civ 1943 Discharge of search and seizure orders on grounds of material non-disclosure where there is a need to preserve physical evidence resulting from execution of the order. Nayler v Beard and Others [2001] EWCA Civ 1201 Disclosure in partnership proceedings of an affidavit of means sworn by one of the partners in matrimonial proceedings. R v Grainger and Another [2001] EWCA Crim 1648 Whether the Court has jurisdiction under the Company Directors Disqualification Act to limit disqualification to directorship of a public company. Professional Negligence Christopher has over 30 years experience of professional negligence litigation. He appears regularly on behalf of both corporate and private clients in the Chancery Division, the Queen's Bench Division and the Technology and Construction Court, both for Claimants and Defendants. Christopher has experience in a wide range of fields of professional negligence, negligent mis-statement and breach of duty. His previous cases have involved accountants, architects, barristers, commercial franchisers, company directors, engineers, receivers, solicitors, surveyors, trustees, underwriters and valuers. He has specialist expertise in the field of directors' disqualification and frequently represents those accused of professional disciplinary offences. He appears regularly before the Disciplinary Tribunals of the ICAEW and the ACCA. Christopher has lectured on commercial matters, as well as on professional discipline, in Chambers seminars and to various firms of solicitors, to the Chancery Bar Association and to the Professional Conduct and Complaints Committee of the Bar Council. Recent cases: Seery v Leathes Prior [2017] EWHC 80 (QB) Consideration of the scope of duty owed by a solicitor to his client in the context of a dispute between the directors/shareholders of a private limited company and whether the solicitor had acted in breach of duty in failing to advise his client to seek relief by means of an unfair prejudice petition pursuant to section 994 of the Companies Act 2006. Detailed consideration of expert evidence regarding the method to be applied when valuing the company’s shares. Scriven v Scriven and Evans Mockler Limited [2015] EWHC 1690 (Ch) A substantial trial regarding, inter alia, an examination of the fiduciary, contractual and common law duties owed by a firm of accountants to the promoter, shareholder and director of a series of private, family-owned trading and property companies, such duties having to be established in the absence of any express retainer or client care letter; together with complex issues of causation and an evaluation of the measure of damages associated with various alleged breaches of the accountant’s duty resulting in lost profits and loss of capital gain. Construction and engineering Christopher has over 30 years experience of technology and construction claims covering all aspects of the field. He has appeared for claimants and defendants in cases concerning defective design, defective work, loss and expense and professional negligence, many of them multi-party. Christopher is familiar with all the principal standard forms of construction contract as well as the standard forms of professional retainer, and frequently advises on their interpretation. Many of his cases have concerned claims worth £1 million and more. By way of example, in the case of Tubetech International Limited (see below) he acted for the successful claimant in a multi-million pound contractual dispute concerning the cleaning of condenser pipework at the world’s largest liquefied natural gas plant. He has experience of preparing for and fighting long-running cases. He has the ability to organise and absorb technical detail and to arrange the presentation of cases which are “paper heavy” efficiently and economically. He also has wide experience of general commercial matters and appears regularly in the Chancery Division of the High Court. Christopher is a Tecbar Accredited Adjudicator. Recent cases: Kingfisher Builders v Sear [2011] EWHC 1122 TCC Contractual rights of the parties to a building contract in circumstances in which the work content had been so substantially varied as to virtually amount to a new contract. Thurgood v Coyle [2007] EWHC 2696 (Ch) Whether the administrator of a property development company had the right to sell construction design rights which were the subject of restrictions on assignability contained in a JCT design and build contract, to a purchaser of the company’s assets. Technip-Coflexip and Others v Tube Tech International Limited [2005] EWCA Civ 1369; 106 Con LR 32 Whether a specialist contract for the cleaning of a major component at a liquefied natural gas refinery based upon a daily rate for the provision of men and equipment, was a contract for services or a contract of hire. Tube Tech International Limited v Technip-Coflexip and Others [2004] EWHC 2 (TCC) Ostensible authority of an offshore company to enter into a contract on behalf of an international consortium comprising its controlling shareholders. Tongyuan (USA) International Trading Group v Uni-Clan Limited [2001] Available grounds for resisting summary enforcement in the UK of a foreign arbitration award.

Conor Mullan

Overview Conor Mullan joined 3PB in November 2021 and has specialised in personal injury and clinical negligence claims for nearly 20 years. His practice focuses on personal injury, clinical negligence, inquests and health and safety with a background in serious criminal law. During which time he has frequently dealt with injuries up to and including those of the utmost severity. This includes being instructed in the UK Covid-19 Public Inquiry in an ongoing specialist advisory role for a number of participant NHS organisations and acting as one of the counsel to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. His successful practice at the Bar of Northern Ireland since 2003 was extended to England and Wales following his call to the Bar in 2012; and Conor now enjoys a well-established, dual practice in both jurisdictions. His practice in Northern Ireland is predominately High Court civil law claims and appeals. For a number of years Conor has been panel-approved counsel for the insurance sector, conducting cases for all the major insurers and their preferred defendant law firms. Conor recently appeared in the Court of Appeal of Saint Helena, utilising his extensive background in serious criminal trials, to represent a senior medical practitioner against the Attorney General of Saint Helena. The case follows a complex criminal investigation on the island about potential criminal charges following treatment of his client's former patients. The appeal looked at the Caribbean island's Supreme Court ruling on the arrest and subsequent bail without charge of the accused. Civil proceedings relating to an injunction arising out of allegations of clinical negligence ran parallel to the appeal case (see under Clinical Negligence tab). Conor has lectured on wide-ranging areas of personal injury issues including credit hire disputes, employers’ liability claims and litigation tactics as well as health and safety law. Personal Injury Conor Mullan is an experienced personal injury practitioner who is instructed in a wide range of personal injury law: road traffic accidents; employers’ liability; Highways Act claims; occupiers’ liability; fatal accidents and clinical negligence. He advises from the outset and helps tactically steer the claim through the entire litigation process including; drafting pleadings and advices on liability and quantum, advising in conference, liaising with liability and medical experts and drafting detailed narrative schedules of loss and position statements for settlement meetings etc. He regularly represents both Claimants and Defendants in trials, appeals, interim applications and costs and case management hearings. Conor also has particular expertise and interest in motor insurance fraud litigation in road traffic accidents (including fraud-rings, staged, contrived and induced accidents, low velocity impact cases, phantom passenger claims, credit hire fraud, exaggeration of loss etc.) which is complimented by his extensive background as a trial advocate in criminal law, and he is instructed by both Claimants and Defendants. Throughout his career, Conor has defended RTA claims for many of the major insurers, both on quantum and liability. His quantum experience extends across the full range of personal injury claims and related litigation including catastrophic injuries; industrial disease; chronic pain and psychiatric injuries. Clinical Negligence Conor Mullan is instructed in the main to act for claimants in clinical negligence claims. He offers specialist advice and advocacy in all aspects of clinical negligence claims and a wide range of healthcare issues. He has forged close links with a diverse array of specialist medical professionals. Conor provides high quality advice and representation across the whole spectrum of clinical litigation and associated disciplinary tribunals. His experience ranges from dental negligence, and the smaller obstetric and orthopaedic claims to complex psychiatric and catastrophic injury claims. He recently appeared in the Supreme Court of Saint Helena representing a senior medical practitioner subject to an injunction preventing him from leaving the island. He was instructed by the Public Solicitors office in Saint Helena in conjunction with the Medical Protection Society in London and the Embassy of Guatemala in London. The case involved diverse and wide-ranging issues stemming from allegations of clinical negligence. The injunction brought by the Attorney General of Saint Helena was successfully discharged by Conor, following final hearing before the Chief Justice. He also appeared in the Court of Appeal of Saint Helena, utilising his extensive background in serious criminal trials, to represent this medical practitioner against the Attorney General of Saint Helena. The case follows a complex criminal investigation on the island about potential criminal charges following treatment of his client's former patients. The appeal looked at the Caribbean island's Supreme Court ruling on the arrest and subsequent bail without charge of the accused. The Justices of Appeal sat remotely in London with representation spread over England, Scotland and Saint Helena. The appeal tested the jurisdiction of the Court and the interpretation of amended Saint Helena legislation, specifically those on arrest, detention and release of suspects. Inquests Conor Mullan has significant experience of inquests in Coroner’s Courts and wider Public Inquiries, representing the interests of families of the deceased or those of other interested parties, advising on and acting in subsequent fatal accident claims or other associated proceedings. Conor is instructed in the UK Covid-19 Public Inquiry in an ongoing specialist advisory role for a number of participant NHS organisations. He was also instructed as counsel to the ongoing Grenfell Tower Inquiry during 2020. Conor also represented the family of Roseanne Irvine over a number of weeks in an inquest into her suicide whilst in custody at HMP Maghaberry in Northern Ireland in 2007. The inquest was monitored by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and was the subject of a report “NIHRC- The prison within” into the imprisonment of women. The inquest jury came to an unprecedented verdict which then formed the backbone of civil proceedings in the High Court on behalf of the family. The inquest was nationally reported and subject to extensive commentary. The Coroner made representations to HM Government recommending the holding of a Public Inquiry arising out of same. Conor is frequently instructed to act in inquests arising from fatal accidents at work and fatalities relating to road traffic accidents. His most recent jury inquest lasted a number of weeks and concerned a police pursuit of a stolen vehicle, resulting in the fatalities of the young occupants. Health and Safety Law Conor is also often leading counsel for health and safety disputes, acting for both the Health and Safety Executive and defendant businesses and individual directors or safety officers in prosecutions. He has contributed to many health and safety seminars for lawyers including Pinsent Masons, Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland (HSENI) and the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). He recently presented at the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) in London

Craig Ludlow

Overview Craig is a highly experienced leading employment law barrister who is consistently recommended by both Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500 legal directories, being variously described therein as: '…a first class advocate. He quickly gets a grasp of the key issues of a case and is keen to understand a client's objectives and how he can get there.' (Legal 500 2024/Employment/Leading Juniors/Western Circuit - Tier 1) 'Craig's strengths include making you feel at ease and confident in terms of how quickly he can pick up a matter and understand what's important.' (Legal 500 2024/Employment/Leading Juniors/London Bar) “Craig's detailed and thorough understanding of discrimination law inspires confidence. He is tactful but direct - someone who can help steer strategic decisions at pivotal moments. He builds great rapport with clients.” “Led by the ‘organised and efficient‘ Craig Ludlow, 3PB‘s employment group has ‘a great strength in depth regarding employment law.” (Legal 500 2023/Employment/Leading Juniors/Western Circuit - Tier 1) “A forceful and knowledgeable advocate, who is always well prepared and quick to put pressure on the other side. Craig is a good communicator and excellent with clients.” (Legal 500 2023/Employment/Leading Juniors/London Bar) “He is very user-friendly, and provides practical and insightful advice.” (Legal 500 2022/Employment/Leading Juniors/Western Circuit) ''Craig is great at building up strong client relationships and getting to know their business - perfect for repeat instructions for clients who face lots of claims due to their size. He is meticulous and thorough, calming clients throughout stressful proceedings and complex legal issues.’' (Legal 500 2022/Employment/Leading Juniors/London Bar) "His advocacy is impressive, deftly executed and instils confidence in the client and, importantly, the judge." (Legal 500 2021/Employment/Leading Juniors/Western) "Highly skilled and has a huge range of experience; Craig is pragmatic, commercial, approachable and always goes the extra mile." (Legal 500 2021/Employment/Leading Juniors/London Bar) "Always thorough and well prepared, with a keen eye for detail." (Legal 500 2020/Employment/Leading Juniors/Western) "Very knowledgeable and builds great client rapport." (Legal 500 2018/19 /Employment/Leading Juniors/Western) Strengths: “He is affable and good at drilling down into the issue. He is calculated and erudite and has the respect of judges.” “Craig is a very skilled advocate and has the complete confidence of our clients, furthering their interests in all ways.” “I am very impressed by Craig. He is absolutely meticulous, persistent and reliable. His exceptional advocacy inspires confidence in clients.” (Chambers UK 2024/Employment/London Bar) Strengths: “Craig is very personable and understands the industry inside and out.” (Chambers UK 2024/Employment/Midlands Bar) “a highly skilled advocate who places client care at the forefront of his work.” (Chambers UK 2023/Employment/London Bar) "a commercially minded barrister; he has excellent attention to detail, he listens and seeks to resolve obstacles in a polite, pragmatic and respectful manner and he is assertive and firm at the appropriate times." "He is a really good advocate, who is really approachable and is able to explain difficult concepts." (Chambers UK 2022/Employment/London Bar) Craig was the Head of 3PB’s employment and discrimination law team and a Board Member of Chambers’ national Policy Committee for 5 years prior to stepping down in June 2024, during which period the team and Chambers enjoyed continued growth and success. He continues to be an editorial Board Member of the Employment Lawyers Association (UK) Briefing magazine, a Member of the Institute of Directors, and a Member of the Non-Executive Directors’ Association. Having developed a successful nationwide practice spanning over 20 years, he is a highly experienced advocate who now acts predominantly for companies across the full range of employment-related claims brought in the Employment Tribunals, County Courts, and the High Court. Reflective of his level of skill and experience in dealing with factually and legally complex disputes, Craig is regularly instructed to conduct multi-day and multi-week whistleblowing and discrimination cases. He also has a particular academic and professional interest in employment status cases and cases involving trade unions: Uber, Employment Status, and Whether Statutory Reform Is Still Necessary Industrial Action: the present limitations on the ability of trade unions to call industrial action During his time in practice, Craig has acted for and against: myriad local authorities; technology companies; engineering companies; financial services companies; national newspapers; charities; schools; colleges; care homes; GP and dental practices; NHS Trusts; recruitment consultancies; insurance companies; supermarkets; and adult education providers. Consequently, he is very familiar with dealing with the Care Quality Commission (“CQC”), safeguarding issues, the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), and all of the relevant professional, regulatory, and Ombudsman issues which arise from dealing with this type of litigation. Over the last 15 years he has also developed a sub-specialism in transport work. Through his dealings with this type of work, he is very familiar with the specific policies, procedures, and contracts of employment that are sometimes unique to the transport industry. In particular, he is fully conversant with the commercial aspects of how London-based transport companies interact with and secure contracts with Transport for London (“TfL”) and the standards which those companies must adhere to in order to retain such contracts. This can sometimes raise issues which require sensitive and careful handling. He has also been involved in litigation concerning Network Rail and international airlines. He is frequently instructed by employers to provide strategic and policy advice, as well as advising them during the course of sometimes very factually and legally complex / sensitive grievance and disciplinary investigations and processes. In more recent years he has also developed a specialty in advising both employers and employees on the enforceability of and / or breaches of post-employment restrictive covenants, applying for and defending applications for injunctive relief in the High Court, and on the various common law and equitable remedies which might be available to a successful party following such applications and subsequent claims. He regularly provides case law updates, lectures, seminars, mock tribunals and bespoke training to solicitors, employer clients (including Boards of Directors and CEOs), and Human Resources professionals. Most recently, such training has included mental health issues arising in the context of disability discrimination claims, flexible working post-pandemic, and also a webinar explaining the detail of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and its wider implications for employers and employees in the workplace. He is also an approved lecturer with ACAS and has given numerous lectures with employees of ACAS around the country to businesses and HR professionals on subjects ranging from misconduct dismissals, Tribunal procedure, TUPE, and most recently on flexible working applications in the context of hybrid working. Craig has been appointed to the panel of barristers of the Employment Lawyers Appeals Advice Scheme (‘ELAAS’). ELAAS is a service offering pro bono employment law advice to appellants and respondents where there is a preliminary hearing in the Employment Appeal Tribunal with no previous legal representation on record. Overview Craig is a highly experienced leading employment law barrister who is consistently recommended by both Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500 legal directories, being variously described therein as: '…a first class advocate. He quickly gets a grasp of the key issues of a case and is keen to understand a client's objectives and how he can get there.' (Legal 500 2024/Employment/Leading Juniors/Western Circuit - Tier 1) 'Craig's strengths include making you feel at ease and confident in terms of how quickly he can pick up a matter and understand what's important.' (Legal 500 2024/Employment/Leading Juniors/London Bar) “Craig's detailed and thorough understanding of discrimination law inspires confidence. He is tactful but direct - someone who can help steer strategic decisions at pivotal moments. He builds great rapport with clients.” “Led by the ‘organised and efficient‘ Craig Ludlow, 3PB‘s employment group has ‘a great strength in depth regarding employment law.” (Legal 500 2023/Employment/Leading Juniors/Western Circuit - Tier 1) “A forceful and knowledgeable advocate, who is always well prepared and quick to put pressure on the other side. Craig is a good communicator and excellent with clients.” (Legal 500 2023/Employment/Leading Juniors/London Bar) “He is very user-friendly, and provides practical and insightful advice.” (Legal 500 2022/Employment/Leading Juniors/Western Circuit) ''Craig is great at building up strong client relationships and getting to know their business - perfect for repeat instructions for clients who face lots of claims due to their size. He is meticulous and thorough, calming clients throughout stressful proceedings and complex legal issues.’' (Legal 500 2022/Employment/Leading Juniors/London Bar) "His advocacy is impressive, deftly executed and instils confidence in the client and, importantly, the judge." (Legal 500 2021/Employment/Leading Juniors/Western) "Highly skilled and has a huge range of experience; Craig is pragmatic, commercial, approachable and always goes the extra mile." (Legal 500 2021/Employment/Leading Juniors/London Bar) "Always thorough and well prepared, with a keen eye for detail." (Legal 500 2020/Employment/Leading Juniors/Western) "Very knowledgeable and builds great client rapport." (Legal 500 2018/19 /Employment/Leading Juniors/Western) “a highly skilled advocate who places client care at the forefront of his work.” (Chambers UK 2023/Employment/London Bar) "a commercially minded barrister; he has excellent attention to detail, he listens and seeks to resolve obstacles in a polite, pragmatic and respectful manner and he is assertive and firm at the appropriate times." "He is a really good advocate, who is really approachable and is able to explain difficult concepts." (Chambers UK 2022/Employment/London Bar) Craig was the Head of 3PB’s employment and discrimination law team and a Board Member of Chambers’ national Policy Committee for 5 years prior to stepping down in June 2024, during which period the team and Chambers enjoyed continued growth and success. He continues to be an editorial Board Member of the Employment Lawyers Association (UK) Briefing magazine, a Member of the Institute of Directors, and a Member of the Non-Executive Directors’ Association. Having developed a successful nationwide practice spanning over 20 years, he is a highly experienced advocate who now acts predominantly for companies across the full range of employment-related claims brought in the Employment Tribunals, County Courts, and the High Court. Reflective of his level of skill and experience in dealing with factually and legally complex disputes, Craig is regularly instructed to conduct multi-day and multi-week whistleblowing and discrimination cases. He also has a particular academic and professional interest in employment status cases and cases involving trade unions: Uber, Employment Status, and Whether Statutory Reform Is Still Necessary Industrial Action: the present limitations on the ability of trade unions to call industrial action During his time in practice, Craig has acted for and against: myriad local authorities; technology companies; engineering companies; financial services companies; national newspapers; charities; schools; colleges; care homes; GP and dental practices; NHS Trusts; recruitment consultancies; insurance companies; supermarkets; and adult education providers. Consequently, he is very familiar with dealing with the Care Quality Commission (“CQC”), safeguarding issues, the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), and all of the relevant professional, regulatory, and Ombudsman issues which arise from dealing with this type of litigation. Over the last 15 years he has also developed a sub-specialism in transport work. Through his dealings with this type of work, he is very familiar with the specific policies, procedures, and contracts of employment that are sometimes unique to the transport industry. In particular, he is fully conversant with the commercial aspects of how London-based transport companies interact with and secure contracts with Transport for London (“TfL”) and the standards which those companies must adhere to in order to retain such contracts. This can sometimes raise issues which require sensitive and careful handling. He has also been involved in litigation concerning Network Rail and international airlines. He is frequently instructed by employers to provide strategic and policy advice, as well as advising them during the course of sometimes very factually and legally complex / sensitive grievance and disciplinary investigations and processes. In more recent years he has also developed a specialty in advising both employers and employees on the enforceability of and / or breaches of post-employment restrictive covenants, applying for and defending applications for injunctive relief in the High Court, and on the various common law and equitable remedies which might be available to a successful party following such applications and subsequent claims. He regularly provides case law updates, lectures, seminars, mock tribunals and bespoke training to solicitors, employer clients (including Boards of Directors and CEOs), and Human Resources professionals. Most recently, such training has included mental health issues arising in the context of disability discrimination claims, flexible working post-pandemic, and also a webinar explaining the detail of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and its wider implications for employers and employees in the workplace. He is also an approved lecturer with ACAS and has given numerous lectures with employees of ACAS around the country to businesses and HR professionals on subjects ranging from misconduct dismissals, Tribunal procedure, TUPE, and most recently on flexible working applications in the context of hybrid working. Craig has been appointed to the panel of barristers of the Employment Lawyers Appeals Advice Scheme (‘ELAAS’). ELAAS is a service offering pro bono employment law advice to appellants and respondents where there is a preliminary hearing in the Employment Appeal Tribunal with no previous legal representation on record. A brief overview of his trial experience in the recent past is set out below: Skarbek-Cieleck v Holly Rise Consultants Ltd t/a Bluebird Care (Case No: 2303648/2017) - Successfully representing the respondent homecare provider in claims made against it for direct race discrimination and breach of the working time regulations. Mustafa v Metroline West Ltd (Case No: 3328088/2017) - Successfully representing the respondent bus company in claims made against it for detrimental treatment for trade union activity and unfair dismissal. Thomas v Youth Hostel of England & Wales Ltd (Case No: 1403380/2018) - Successfully representing the respondent at a preliminary hearing dealing with the issue of employment status, at which it was held that the Claimant was self-employed. Taylor v EDF Energy Ltd (Case No: 1403518/2018) - Successfully representing the respondent energy company at a preliminary hearing on its application to strike out the claimant’s claims for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. Brown & Others v (1) London General Transport Services Ltd (2) Blue Triangle Buses Ltd (3) East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd (Case No: 3310904/2014) - Successfully representing one of three respondent bus companies in claims brought by 55 bus drivers for unauthorised deductions from wages arising out of historic claims for meal allowances following multiple TUPE transfers. The trial lasted for 6 days and all claims were dismissed. Anonymous v East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd (Case No: 3202012/2015) - Successfully representing the Respondent bus company, its Operations Director, and one of its Acting Supervisors in an 8 day trial involving complex claims of detriment because of making various protected public interest disclosures and claims for direct sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and unfair dismissal. Spinelli v Menzies Aviation (UK) Ltd (Case No: 3200653/2016) - Successfully representing the Claimant in a claim for unfair dismissal against an aviation logistics company involving a breach of airport security. Following the successful conclusion of the case, the Claimant and her husband said of Mr Ludlow: “From the first conversation over the phone I found Mr Craig Ludlow to be very smart, knowledgeable and honest on the merit of the case. He worked very hard preparing for the case in a short period which happens to be a complicated and sensitive case. Craig was very meticulous in his work; his attention to details was brilliant which helped my case. Craig was outstanding in cross-examining the respondent’s witnesses. He was very persuasive in putting the important points across. My husband and I were very impressed by Craig’s professionalism that we decided after the hearing to instruct Craig on a direct access basis. Craig was a very smart negotiator prior to the remedies hearing. He was in constant contact with me despite his busy schedule. Craig always responded promptly to my emails and phone calls even during the weekend. His advice was very precious. Craig’s contribution, his professionalism and dedication makes the difference between a Barrister and an outstanding Barrister. We are so grateful to you and that would have been the case regardless of the outcome. I would highly recommend you to anybody looking for your services.” Luke v Venson Automotive Solutions Ltd (Case No: 2301755/2016) - Successfully representing a Respondent fleet management company in a 4 day trial involving claims of detriment made by a male claimant for taking leave for family reasons and constructive unfair dismissal. Shaikh v Tower Transit Operations Ltd (Case No: 2208392/2016) - Acting for the Respondent bus company at a preliminary hearing and securing deposit orders totalling £7,000 in respect of claims for: direct discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, and disability; discrimination arising from disability; indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability; failing to make reasonable adjustments on the grounds of disability; harassment on the grounds of all of the above protected characteristics; and victimisation. Coffey v B M Pearson Ltd (Case No: 1400571/2016) - 10 day trial representing the Defendant dental practice in numerous historical whistleblowing claims and a claim for constructive unfair dismissal raising issues involving NHS England and the Care Quality Commission. Omar v Tower Transit Operations Ltd (Case No: 3201534/2014) - Successfully representing a Respondent bus company in a 5 day trial involving claims for direct race discrimination, religious discrimination, and unfair dismissal. The judgment in the case records variously that: “We agree with Mr Ludlow for the Respondent that where the Claimant disputes the contents of the notes of meetings he does so selectively when it suits him or his case to do so…”; “We think there is some force in the suggestion put to the Claimant by Mr Ludlow that he was “making it up as he went along”…”; “Mr Ludlow correctly points out that the Claimant made no reference in this considered occurrence report (which the Claimant headed “Horrific Occurrence”) of (i) spitting; (ii) racial abuse; (iii) discrimination on grounds of race or religion; (iv) being accused of praying by Mr Asew or (v) any allegation that his Somali national origins or Muslim religion were relevant”; and “We think Mr Ludlow’s observations on behalf of the Respondent as to the Claimant’s credibility are well made”. Mr Ludlow recently secured a costs order for £12,616 against the Claimant, which was the full amount of the Respondent’s legal fees. Taylor v (1) Endeavour Insurance Services (2) CGNMB LLP - Successfully representing the Claimant in a 3 day preliminary hearing involving TUPE issues and claims for direct sex discrimination and unfair dismissal. Styles v London United Busways Ltd - Successfully representing the Respondent bus company in a 7 day trial involving numerous and wide ranging historical complaints of direct sex discrimination and harassment, as well as claims for unfair dismissal claim, race discrimination, direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, indirect discrimination on grounds of disability, and discrimination arising from disability. Atanasiu v Personnel Selection Associates Ltd - Appearing for the Respondent recruitment agency and succeeding in an application to strike out a claim against them for alleged direct sex discrimination and sexual harassment by an employee of their client. Chasha v Swarthmore Housing Society Ltd - 9 day trial acting for the Respondent care home involving claims of direct race discrimination and unfair dismissal. Patel v East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd - 4 day trial acting for a Respondent bus company involving claims for direct race discrimination and unfair dismissal. Anwar v Sir George Monoux College - Successfully representing the Respondent college in an 8 day trial involving claims of direct race discrimination, indirect race discrimination, and unfair dismissal. Llewellyn-Jones v Cyient Europe Ltd - Successfully represented the Respondent in a 3 day trial involving a claim for constructive unfair dismissal arising out of a mobility clause in the Claimant’s contract of employment. Denton v Renewable Energy Systems Ltd - Successfully representing the Respondent in a 3 day trial involving a claim for unfair dismissal arising out of a redundancy process. Field v Bournemouth Transport Ltd - Successfully representing the Respondent bus company in a 2-day trial involving claims for unfair dismissal, age discrimination, and disability discrimination. Osei-Agyeman v East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd - Successfully representing the Respondent bus company in a 3 day trial involving claims for direct race discrimination and unfair dismissal, in which the unsuccessful Claimant was ordered to pay £7,500 towards the Respondent’s costs on the basis that the complaints were misconceived and it was unreasonable for him to have continued to pursue his claims. Miah v Docklands Buses Ltd - Successfully representing the Respondent bus company in a 2-day trial involving claims of unfair dismissal, trade union discrimination, unlawful deduction from wages, and breaches of the Working Time Regulations in respect of holidays. Hamdoun v London General Transport Services Ltd - Successfully representing the Respondent bus company in a 5 day trial involving claims for direct race discrimination and unfair dismissal. Looking ahead to 2019, Craig has already been instructed to conduct numerous multi-day trials, including: Acting for a storage company in a 5 day race discrimination and unfair dismissal case. Acting for a multi-national mobile telephone provider in a 5 day disability discrimination and unfair dismissal case. Acting for a social media consultancy in a 5 day pregnancy and maternity discrimination, sex discrimination, and unfair dismissal case. Acting for a bus company in a 6 day multiple and historic whistleblowing and unfair dismissal case. Acting for a Trust in a 7 day trial involving whistleblowing detriment allegations and unfair dismissal, in a case in which Craig has already successfully had multiple detriment allegations and a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim dismissed on jurisdictional grounds at a preliminary hearing (Case No: 2602066/17). Acting for the National Register of Public Service Interpreters in a 5 day trial involving claims of whistleblowing detriment and dismissal, health and safety whistleblowing and detriment, age discrimination, disability discrimination, harassment, and unfair dismissal. Acting for a warehousing, distribution, transport, and logistics company in a 5 day trial involving claims of victimisation and unfair dismissal.

Daniel Brown

Overview Daniel is a specialist Employment, Discrimination and Professional Discipline barrister. He represents individuals, businesses and other organisations in Tribunal, Court and fitness to practise proceedings. Daniel is ranked as a 'Leading Junior' Employment and Professional Discipline barrister and serves on the Employment Law Bar Association (ELBA) management committee. Daniel is also the Deputy Head of 3PB’s Professional Discipline team. Daniel has expertise in the healthcare sector, having advised and represented professionals including doctors, dentists, nurses and midwives as well as NHS Trusts, Regulators and Care Homes. Employment and Discrimination Daniel has experience across the full spectrum of ET complaints but specialises in Equality Act 2010, whistleblowing and TUPE claims. Daniel has delivered training on topics including unfair dismissal, redundancy and, on behalf of ACAS, ‘TUPE in a day’ training to managers, company directors, HR professionals and others. Daniel also has experience of defending employment claims in the civil courts, as well as representing both claimants and defendants in Goods and Services discrimination claims. EAT cases Daniel’s EAT cases include: B.L.I.S.S Residential Care Ltd v Fellows [2023] IRLR 528: Appeal about the significance of errors made by a Claimant’s legal representative in an application to extend time for the purpose of an unfair dismissal claim. Earl Shilton Town Council v Miller [2023] IRLR 352: Appeal concerning the meaning of ‘inherent discrimination’. Field v Steve Pye and Co. (KL) Limited & Others [2022] IRLR 948: Represented the Appellant in an appeal brought on various grounds including a challenge to the ET’s failure to apply the burden of proof in s.136 Equality Act 2010 correctly. The appeal was allowed and the case was remitted to the ET for a complete re-hearing before a different Judge. Rainford v Dorset Aquatics Limited EA-2020-000123-BA: Represented the successful Respondent in an appeal brought by a company director and shareholder claiming to be an employee or worker of the Respondent company. The EAT upheld the ET’s conclusion that the Claimant was neither an employee nor a worker. Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v Dearing & Others UKEAT/0344/16/LA: Represented three Claimants in an appeal concerning the law on victimisation (section 27 Equality Act 2010). The appeal was brought by the Respondent against three successful claims. The EAT dismissed the appeal in respect of one of the claims and remitted the other two claims back to the same ET. Beaumont v Costco Wholesale UK Ltd UKEAT/0080/15/DA: Represented the Claimant in an appeal against the ET’s judgment dismissing his unfair dismissal claim. The EAT allowed the appeal and ordered a fresh hearing of the unfair dismissal claim before a differently constituted ET. Daniel Brown is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact Daniel for a copy of his privacy policy which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may collect about you, or that is provided to him, will be processed by him. He will provide a copy of this policy to you within five working days of its request. Professional Discipline Daniel is the Deputy Head of 3PB’s Professional Discipline team. Daniel has advised and represented a wide range of healthcare professionals including doctors, dentists, nurses and midwives as well as NHS Trusts, Regulators and Care Homes in proceedings before the: General Medical Council/MPTS, General Dental Council, Health and Care Professions Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council, British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, the British Psychoanalytic Council, Social Work England and others. In addition, Daniel has experience of Teaching Regulation Agency proceedings. Daniel has experience of cases involving allegations of misconduct, lack of competence/deficient professional performance, ill-health and criminal convictions/cautions and has handled numerous serious, lengthy and complex cases involving: patient deaths, serious harm, dishonesty, CQC inspections, multiple parties and contested expert evidence. In addition to substantive hearings, Daniel has appeared in many interim order applications, reviews, restoration applications, registration appeals and fraudulent entry hearings. Daniel’s recent work includes advising a healthcare regulator regarding amendments to its Fitness to Practise Procedure. Daniel Brown is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact Daniel for a copy of his privacy policy which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may collect about you, or that is provided to him, will be processed by him. He will provide a copy of this policy to you within five working days of its request. Direct Access Daniel Brown is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Access (or Public Access) scheme.

David Swinstead

Overview David Swinstead works exclusively as a legal assessor/adviser for five health regulators and for two accountancy bodies, including the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, the General Dental Council, the General Chiropractic Council, the General Optical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the Association of Accounting Technicians and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. After having had a common law practice principally in the areas of personal injury, clinical negligence and criminal law and after having had some fifteen years as a legal assessor, he has developed considerable experience and expertise in professional regulatory law. Public and Regulatory David is now a full time legal assessor/adviser, utilising the skills honed by previously practising at the Bar in these areas. He presently acts for the following Legal assessor - the Association of Accounting Technicians Legal assessor - the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting Legal assessor - the General Chiropractic Council Legal adviser - the General Dental Council Legal assessor - the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service Legal adviser - the General Optical Council Legal assessor - the Nursing and Midwifery Council Formerly Legal assessor - the General Osteopathic Council David's former Bar Practice included: Personal Injury: Claimant and Defendant work including, in particular, accidents at work, road accidents and maritime accidents Clinical Negligence: Claimant work covering a number of areas including orthopaedic, obstetric, vascular, respiratory, general practice and dental cases Professional Negligence: Claimant work covering solicitors and surveyors negligence Criminal: involving both Prosecution and Defence work; including murder / manslaughter cases, assaults, robbery and burglary cases, white-collar crime including frauds, thefts / dishonesty by professional advisers, employees and others in positions of trust Appointments: General Medical Council/Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service Acted as a Legal Assessor since May 2002, and was formally appointed in October 2002. Formerly acted as Legal Assessor for the Professional Conduct Committee, the Committee on Professional Performance and the Interim Orders Committee. After the change in the legislation, acted as the Legal Assessor for the Fitness to Practise Panels (now Tribunals) with regard to conduct, health, registration and performance, and has also acted for the Interim Orders Panel/Tribunal regularly and the Investigation Committee on a number of occasions. David has acted in a number of relatively high profile cases including P (2002) A case of conduct in which Queen’s Counsel appeared for both the GMC and the doctor and which involved complex issues of law and fact including matters concerning the sterilisation of young women with disabilities. W (2003/4) A performance case which lasted for 41 days where the doctor was unrepresented but was receiving outside legal advice and in which he raised countless matters of law, in particular, concerning the European Convention on Human Rights. P (2005) A high-profile case involving Queen’s Counsel on both sides where complex issues of law were argued and, during the hearing, counsel for the doctor sought and obtained a stay of the proceedings to seek judicial review of the decisions of the Panel. During the application for judicial review, the Learned Judge approved the advice that David had given to the Panel which it had, for good reasons, decided to reject; there was, in fact, in the end, no judicial review hearing and the matter did not proceed. C (2006) A high-profile case concerning matters involving the doctor’s fertility clinic, involving Queen’s Counsel on both sides in which a submission was made and upheld at the conclusion of the Council’s case that there was “no case to answer”. R (2008/09) Another 40-day performance case where the doctor parted company with two separate barristers instructed to represent her. She was then represented by her adopted son and then she represented herself; the case had a number of complex evidential and procedural issues to resolve. S (2010) Involved an unusual issue where the application by the defence was that the hearing be stayed on health grounds. Depending upon the decision of the Panel, there was also the possibility of an application for voluntary erasure. There was no precedent as to how such issues should be decided or the order in which they should be resolved. The advice David gave and the determinations in this case were used as precedents in the subsequent case involving the doctor in the “Baby P” case. General Dental Council Acted as a Legal Adviser (Assessor) since January 2004. David has acted for the Health Committee, the Professional Conduct Committee and the Interim Orders Committee. David has acted in a number of relatively complex cases including B (2008) This was a case where the dentist and his counsel parted company. Unfortunately, the case had had to be adjourned for two months whilst the dentist was still giving evidence, and it was upon the hearing reconvening that this occurred. There were therefore a number of procedural and evidential issues that had to be resolved to allow the dentist to be released from his oath and to obtain alternative representation. When the case restarted with a new barrister representing him a number of the GDC witnesses had to be recalled to be further cross-examined before the dentist gave further evidence. I (2010) Another case where the dentist and his counsel parted company. In this case there were further complications because of an interim order imposed by the Committee itself, which prevented the dentist from working for a period which meant that he was unable to fund alternative counsel. In the end, this problem was resolved and the case restarted with his being represented and with most of the GDC’s witness being recalled. There were a number of evidential problems, in particular with regard to the large number of expert witnesses called, as to their standing and their evidence. This required a very detailed advice from David on the question of expert witnesses. In both the case of the GMC/MPTS and the GDC, the names of the cases can be provided. General Osteopathic Council Acted as a Legal Assessor between 2004 and 2015 for the Investigation Committee and the Professional Conduct Committee. General Chiropractic Council Legal Assessor since 2006 and has acted for the Professional Conduct Committee. General Optical Council Legal Assessor since 2007 and has acted for the Fitness to Practise Committee. Nursing and Midwifery Council Appointed as a Legal Assessor in 2007. David has acted for the Conduct and Competence Committee, the Health Committee and the Investigation Committee when considering Interim Orders. Association of Accounting Technicians Legal Assessor for the Disciplinary Tribunal since 2009. Chartered Institute and Public Finance and Accountancy Legal Assessor for the Investigating Committee and the Disciplinary Committee since 2013. David has also held the positions of: Member of the Legal Services Funding Review Panel, 1997-2007 Consistory Examiner for the Diocese of Winchester, 1993-2003.

David Whitfield Phillips

Overview David Whitfield Phillips is a door tenant at 3PB, and an experienced criminal law advocate who prosecutes Level 3 and 4 cases at Court Martial, both contested and plea. His main areas of practice are serious sexual assaults and wrongful death cases, focussing on expert evidence as to causation and or identity. David has prosecuted a large number of rape cases, including allegations of historic sexual assault. He has also dealt with wrongful death cases involving issues of causation (manslaughter/murder) and has appeared in the Court of Appeal on numerous occasions, including in the cases of R v Squires, R v Twaite and R v Neill. His practice also includes the prosecution of offences committed during military operations. This has also included arguing fitness to plead in R v Beddoes and resisting an appeal against conviction for murder in R v Blackman (a Marine Murder case). His responsibilities include providing instruction to new prosecutors, with a particular focus on advocacy, serious sexual assault, and the obtaining and adducing expert evidence at trial. He advises on normal interlocutory or other applications such as abuse of process, and fitness to plead, and drafts charges and advice on evidence, and skeleton arguments. Overview David is an experienced criminal law advocate who prosecutes Level 3 and 4 cases at Court Martial, both contested and plea. His main areas of practice are serious sexual assaults and wrongful death cases, focussing on expert evidence as to causation and or identity. David has prosecuted a large number of rape cases, including allegations of historic sexual assault. He has also dealt with wrongful death cases involving issues of causation (manslaughter/murder) and has appeared in the Court of Appeal on numerous occasions, including in the cases of R v Squires, R v Twaite and R v Neill. His practice also includes the prosecution of offences committed during military operations. This has also included arguing fitness to plead in R v Beddoes and resisting an appeal against conviction for murder in R v Blackman (a Marine Murder case). His responsibilities include providing instruction to new prosecutors, with a particular focus on advocacy, serious sexual assault, and the obtaining and adducing expert evidence at trial. He advises on normal interlocutory or other applications such as abuse of process, and fitness to plead, and drafts charges and advice on evidence, and skeleton arguments. Admitted as a Solicitor in England and Wales: 1999 Recent cases: Graham Taylor v Phillip Ruddick (Minister for Immigration) [1999/2000] Nisi application judicial review in High Court of Australia. This was an application in respect of a decision to deport a resident UK Citizen who had lived in outback Australia since age of 7 now aged 40. Federal Court jurisdiction restricted by statute. Obtained stay of proceedings in Federal Court in respect of deportation pending application to High Court. Nisi order obtained single Justice High Court for writs of prohibition, certiorari, mandamus and habeas corpus. R v Beddoes [2013] CMAC Fitness to plead application by defence. Accused charged with perverting course of justice on false rape allegation. Accused held fit to plead. Defence unsuccessfully appealed to Court of Appeal. Convicted. R v Boal [2015] This case involved an allegation of rape in marriage and domestic violence 15 years ago. The offending occurred in Germany. The case raised issues of consent within a marriage. In respect of the rape, the wife was asleep at the time it commenced. Conviction. R v Elder [2012] RAF Court martial with allegation of s.2 SOA sexual assault. Case required substantial s.41 argument as to complainant’s sexual behaviour. Conviction. R v Graham [2014] RAF Scout leader in West Berlin in 1983-87, sexually assaulting cubs and scouts. Pleaded to some but not others. Seven complainants at trial with another four complainants pleaded to. Case relied on successful bad character applications based on similar fact evidence. This was a Court Martial with a civilian jury. After two week trial accused convicted. R v Jenks [2014] This case involved the rape of a female soldier in barracks, when both drunk. The case was complicated by the fragility of the complainant’s mental state. Having obtained a psychiatric report a successful application was made for a Ground rules Hearing under CPD 13. There was substantial pre trial argument in respect of bad character and s.41. This trial resulted in an acquittal. R v Jones [2014] Court Martial at Bulford. Case involved allegation of sexual assault while female soldier was drunk and asleep in bed. This case revolved around expert DNA evidence and its interpretation. Conviction. R v Neil [2011] CMAC Appeal against conviction for GBH in Germany. Court of Appeal judgement given by Hughes LJ. Appeal dealt with two issues, firstly identification evidence and secondly admissibility of German Civilian police evidence. Appeal rejected. R v Rowe [2015] Royal Marine Warrant Officer accused of stealing from USMC PX store in California, while on exercise. Defence application based on psych and medical evidence was that he was suffering from a state of non insane automatism, and dissociative states as a result of dehydration and immediate stress leading to extreme panic attack. Defence called a physiologist Phd to give opinion that accused was suffering from dehydration leading to non insane automatism. This opinion evidence struck out in re trial argument on basis that physiologist not qualified to make such a diagnosis. At trial Defence psychiatrist accepted that not a case of non insane automatism. Remaining issue was whether accused was in a dissociative state or rather was this a case of psychiatric malingering. Defence also argued pre trial that evidence collected by US police failed to comply with PACE. It was sufficient that US police complied with Miranda v State of Arizona [1966]. Conviction. R v Sgt Blackman [2013] [2014] CMAC Junior in murder trial to David Perry QC. Sgt convicted of murdering captive wounded Taliban. Appeared unled in Court of Appeal. Appeal against conviction rejected. R v Sgt Rai [2012] Ghurka Sergeant accused of sexually assaulting Nepalese/UK children. Appeared as junior to Christopher Parker QC (now HHJ). Trial conducted in UK and Brunei. Conviction. R v Shaw [2014] Attempted murder case. Soldier delivered severe kicking to head of another soldier in Cyprus when both in drink. Victim suffered severe brain damage. Only witness was accused’s wife. Accused and wife made admissions to Cypriot police. Investigated by Cypriot police under Judges Rules. Argument about causation and intent relied on forensic medical evidence. Significant pre trial argument about admissibility of Cypriot evidence, s78 applications to exclude. Argument about admissibility of expert evidence. Conviction. R v Shezi [2012] RAF court Martial. Accused recruited from Africa, raped a female airwoman while visiting another RAF station. Conviction. R v Shuttlewood [2015] Multiple rape allegation by older boy on young underage females in Germany. This was a case of grooming and the argument was that victims did not have the freedom to consent. This case had a civilian jury. Conviction. R v Twaite [2010] CMAC Responded to appeal challenging constitution of Court Martial with a bare majority verdict. Majority verdict upheld. R v William Clark [2015] Allegations of indecent assaults on two boys aged 9 and 13 in Germany in 1984 and 1987 while babysitting in West Berlin in 1984. A large part of the case revolved around the successful application to adduce similar fact evidence in this trial. Conviction. This case had a civilian jury. Military David's criminal law practice includes the prosecution of offences committed during military operations. This has also included arguing fitness to plead in R v Beddoes and resisting an appeal against conviction for murder in R v Blackman (a Marine Murder case). David has been security cleared (DV’d) by the State enabling him to have access to classified and other sensitive material. Without such security clearance, the more serious and sensitive cases would be closed to an advocate. David was admitted as a Solicitor in England and Wales in 1999.

David Parratt KC

Overview David Parratt KC (Scot) is a busy barrister, advocate and arbitrator. David has extensive court experience and regularly negotiates settlements in multi-million pounds claims. He is often involved in complex international commercial disputes. David’s practice covers his key experience and interests in arbitration, construction & engineering claims, energy disputes (including oil/gas upstream claims), general commercial litigation and commercial contracts. He is a practising barrister in England & Wales and was called in 2009 (Lincoln’s Inn). He is an non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates (Scottish Bar), having practiced from 1999 to 2020 - taking Silk in Scotland in 2017. He is also a non-practising member of the Northern Irish Bar, calling in 2016. David holds the degrees of LLB(Hons) (University of Aberdeen) and PhD (University of Edinburgh). He also has Diplomas in Legal Practice (University of Aberdeen) and International Commercial Arbitration (Chartered Institute of Arbitrators). He has acquired a huge amount of experience in arbitration, as Counsel in both international and domestic arbitrations (Scottish and English seats) and under various institutional rules (ICC; LCIA; LMAA; ADCAAC). David is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb), holds Chartered Arbitrator Status and is on the panels of many worldwide arbitration institutions. He has held Higher Rights of Audience before the Dubai International Finance Centre (DIFC) and has appeared before the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. He is Honorary Professor of International Arbitration in the School of Law, University of Aberdeen. He is also an Accredited Mediator (CEDR) and has acted as counsel to mediations as well as having accepted appointments as mediator. He was appointed as an ad hoc (part time) Advocate Depute (Crown Counsel) in 2012 which was renewed in 2017. In 2011, David was also appointed as Security Cleared Special Counsel. Publications The Development and Use of Written Pleadings in Scots Civil Procedure” (Stair Society, Vol. 48) (2007) "The Minute Book of the Faculty of Advocates, Volume IV, 1783-1798", Stair Society (with A. Stewart Q.C. – Lord Stewart) (2008) The Scottish Arbitration Handbook (Avizandum Publishing) (with Peter Foreman) (2011) Chapter 16: "Law as a Profession: The Faculty of Advocates" in (ed.) Mark A. Mulhearn, Scottish Life and Society: A Compendium of Scottish Ethnology, Vol. 13: The Law (Birlinn, 2012) (with K. Campbell, Advocate) (2012) Parratt, D.R., and Grahame, A., Scotland World Arbitration Reporter, 2nd Ed., (Juris Publishing, 2018) David has also published over 15 articles in various publications including Scots Law Times, Journal of Psychiatry, Hume Papers on Public Policy, and Journal of Legal History in the fields of Scottish legal history, procedure, travel protection legislation and arbitration. Neutrals - Arbitrators David R Parratt KC (Scot) FCIArb is a leading silk in both international and domestic arbitrations. He has acted as counsel in a range of cases under various institutional rules in international cases. He has been appointed as an arbitrator in ad hoc and institutional arbitrations. He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, holds Chartered Arbitrator status and is a panel member of international arbitral institutions: Kuala Lumpur (AIAC); Cairo (CRCICA); WIPO (Geneva); Dubai (DIFC); Bahrain (GCC); CIArb London (President’s Panel & Scotland (CIArb Panel)); Roster of International Arbitrators (USA); EDAC (Energy Dispute Arbitration Center) (Turkey). He is also an Accredited Mediator (CEDR). Arbitration Experience as Counsel and Arbitrator I v. BT (Scottish Arbitration Centre, 2023): Counsel for Taiwanese Franchisor party against Taiwanese Franchisee party in respect of breach of Area Agreements for supply of fruit tea. M. v. S (LCIA, 2020-23): Counsel for Claimant in Electricity Supply Dispute and JVA share valuation.(£20m). Award rendered. QG v Irish Developer (Dublin, CIMAR, 2022): Appointed arbitrator in respect of Solicitors’ Professional Fees against Contractor Client. Award Rendered. Dr. Toheed v. Dr Akhtar (ad hoc, 2021): Arbitration in respect of termination of a medical practice partnerhsip in the UK. (Settled) MH v. C (LMAA Intermediate Procedure, 2021): Counsel for Claimant in Dispute with Charterer following cancellation of Charter for COVID-19 and Application of Force Majeure. (£500k) Settled. D v E (DIFC-LCIA, 2020): Advising Dubai based companies in respect of ongoing obligations to Oil part Supply Agreements and on prospects regarding two separate arbitration clauses. (£1m) B v B (Seat London, 2020): Advising in family business dispute as to Partnership-at-will (£10m). L Limited (a Firm) v Council (ad hoc, Seat Edinburgh, 2020): Appointed as Arbitrator in dispute as to under a Social Mobility Agreement between the parties. Settled. WPT Partnership against Partners thereof (ad hoc, Seat London, 2019): Instructed for Claimants in a Patent Attorney Partnership Dispute and advising in respect of ad hoc arbitration for purported termination of the Partnership (£4m). Settled T. (Austria) v. A&B (Qatar) (LCIA, Seat London, 2019): Retained as counsel for the Claimant in a Licence infringement case concerning IPR and Trademarks. ($5m) Z v. GSP (LCIA, Seat London, 2019): Instructed for Claimants in a $5m claim and cross claim for a Subcontractor in dispute with a Contractor in respect of the operation of a Platform off the coast of Greece. (settled) Scotland’s Largest Litigation Funder v. Members of Faculty of Advocates (ad hoc, Seat Edinburgh) (2019 ongoing): Instructed for the Claimants in connection with an arbitration for sums claimed under the Late Payments of Commercial Debts regulations. (Settled) J v. T, C & A (ADCAAC, Seat Abu Dhabi) (2019-2022): Appointed as co-arbitrator in connection with construction works on the Midfiled Abu Dhabi Airport construction project. Dhs 900m. Award rendered. X v Y Domestic Arbitration (ad hoc, Seat Edinburgh) (2019): Appointed as Arbitrator in a dispute in relation to the sums liable under a Full Reparing and Insuring Commercial Lease between two commercial entities based in Scotland. Award rendered. International Credit Card Company v. Debtor (ad hoc, Seat London) (2019): Appointed as the Arbitrator in a documents only arbitration. Award rendered. OMS v US Oil Major (LCIA, Seat London) (2017-2018): Successfully represented a small two director company in a £6m claim against an oil major in respect of outstanding invoices for hire of oil and gas equipment; a claim under a Global Collaboration Agreement and multiple claims in respect of infringement of IP Rights. B Borough Council v. HG Limited (ad hoc, Seat London) 2017: Appointed as Counsel to the arbitration. SYE v. M (ICC, Seat Geneva) 2013-2016: Acted for Japanese Respondents with Defence and Counterclaim for $13.5m against Turkish Sub-Contractor Claims of $4.5m in respect of a very large railway infrastructure project in Istanbul. H. v. X Corp. (DIAC, Seat Dubai) 2011-2013: Dispute between Scandanavian JV interest and a US party. ($1.5m) Arbitral Institutional Panels Member of the ICC Member of the LCIA Panel Member of the CIArb (Scottish Branch) Panel of Arbitrators Member of the Hong Kong Arbitration Panel (HKIAC) Member of the Asian International Arbitration Panel (AIAC) Member of the Cairo Arbitration Panel (CRCICA) Member of the WIPO Panel (Geneva) Member of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre List (DIAC) Member of the CIArb London President’s Panel Member of the Juris Roster of International Arbitrators Commercial David Parratt KC (Scot) has a comprehensive commercial practice, with a particular focus on complex commercial disputes, intellectual property, joint ventures. A significant proportion of the matters in which he acts arise within the energy & utilities sector (including oil/gas upstream claims) and involve questions of conflicts between international jurisdictions. David appears as Counsel at all levels of the senior courts, especially the Commercial Court, as well as in both international and domestic arbitrations under various institutional rules (ICC; LCIA; LMAA; ADCAAC). He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, holds Chartered Arbitrator status and is a panel member of the leading international arbitral institutions. He has been appointed as an arbitrator in both ad hoc and institutional arbitrations. Ongoing cases SE v IM - Advising Claimant following Notice of Continuance from Dubai Courts and whether to pursue claim for Share expropriation and fraud. T. (Austria) v. A&B (Qatar) (LCIA, Seat London, 2019) - Retained as counsel for the Claimant in a Licence infringement case concerning Intellectual Property Rights and Trademarks. ($5m) D v E (DIAC, LCIA, 2020) - Advising Dubai based companies in respect of ongoing obligations to Oil Part Supply Agreements and on prospects regarding two separate arbitration clauses and alleged breaches of licences. (£1m) Woodstone Carpentry Limited v Crystal Engineering Limited - Ongoing dispute in connection with installation of FRA on Post Grenfell Tower Buildings in London Boroughs. (2022; High Court). McAnally v St J - Advising claimant in respect of claims against Financial Advisers for Professional Negligence. Recent cases I v. BT (Scottish Arbitration Centre, 2023) - Counsel for Taiwanese Franchisor party against Taiwanese Franchisee party in respect of breach of Area Agreements for supply of fruit tea and infringements of Intellectual Property rights. M. v. S (LCIA, 2020) - LCIA Arbitration c.£25m claim by shareholders against their JV partners in an electricity supply business. The Case required expert evidence on whether minority discounts were appropriate (DLOC DLOM) in the valuation and what the venture capital rates of return would have been in that valuation. Microlise Limited v (1) James Kemball Limited (2) Uniserve Holdings Limited - High Court (KBD) dispute between a Transport Logistics group of companies and the supplier of transport telemetry devices fitted into cabs of lorries raising several issues as to (i) contract formation; (ii) incorporation of terms; (iii) allegations of breach of licence and misrepresentation; (iv) causation and quantification of loss. The Case also raised issues of what is necessary in terms of a clause to exclude the statutory implied terms of “fit for purpose” and “satisfactory quality” from the transactions. Leading Nicholas Kaplan. Awaiting Judgment EFL v An Insurer - High Court (KBD) dispute involving the purchase of 1930s Italian Racing car at auction for the then record price for a car of its kind of c.£1,200,000. The case raised several issues including (i) precontractual representations and contractual warranties; (ii) provenance; and (iii) value. Settled on favourable grounds. Leading Nicholas Kaplan. AFC v AI - High Court (Comm) dispute for claimant against BII insurer “at the premises” clauses – proceeding to trial. Settled. LY v C - High Court (Comm) dispute acing for claimant against BII insurer “at the premises” clauses. Settled. Broderick [2022] EWHC – Dispute concerning a partnership-at-will in £5m dispute between world famous sculptor and other partnership members and whether continued use of artistic moulds were in contravention of asserted Intellectual Property Rights. v. J (LMAA 2022) - Counsel advising on High Court challenge to LMAA Award for Chinese Charterers against Canadian Owners. NHT v K (CIMAR 2022) - Advising in respect of a claim in arbitration for construction defects in a Housing Scheme. Q. v G. (Irish Arbitration Act, 2022) - Arbitrator. Dispute between Irish Solicitors and a former client in relation to outstanding fees. S. v N (LCIA London Seat, 2021) - Counsel in dispute between Aberdeen Oil parts manufacturer and US company granted IPR rights in respect of non-exploitation. Dr T. v Medical Practice (English Seat, 2021) - Counsel advising in respect of arbitration arising from a medical partnership dispute among the partners. Taxis v Council (Scottish Seat, 2021) - Arbitrator. Dispute between taxi company and Council in respect of Licensing. MH v. C (LMAA Intermediate Procedure, 2020) - Counsel for Claimant in Dispute with Charterer following cancellation of Charter for COVID-19 and Application of Force Majeure. Settled £500k. B v B (Seat London, 2020) - Advising in family business dispute as to Partnership-at-will (£10m). L Limited (a Firm) v Council (ad hoc, Seat Edinburgh, 2020) - Appointed as Arbitrator in dispute as to under a Social Mobility Agreement between the parties. Settled. WPT Partnership against Partners thereof (ad hoc, Seat London, 2019) - Instructed for Claimants in a Patent Partnership Dispute and advising in respect of ad hoc arbitration for purported termination of the Partnership (£4m). Settled Z v. GSP (LCIA, Seat London, 2019) - Instructed for Claimants in a $5m claim and cross claim for a subcontractor in dispute with a Contractor in respect of the operation of a Platform off the coast of Greece. (settled) Scotland’s Largest Litigation Funder v. Members of Faculty of Advocates (ad hoc, Seat Edinburgh) (2019) - Instructed for the Claimants in connection with an arbitration for sums claimed under the Late Payments of Commercial Debts regulations. (Settled) J v. T, C & A (ADCAAC, Seat Abu Dhabi) (2021 Award) - Appointed as co-arbitrator in connection with construction works on a major infrastructure project. X v Y Domestic Arbitration (ad hoc, Seat Edinburgh) (2019) - Appointed as Arbitrator in a dispute in relation to the sums liable under a Full Repairing and Insuring Commercial Lease between two commercial entities based in Scotland. Award rendered. International Credit Card Company v. Debtor (ad hoc, Seat London) (2019) - Appointed as the Arbitrator in a documents only arbitration. Award rendered. OMS v US Oil Major (LCIA, Seat London) (2017-2018) - Successfully represented a small two director company in a £6m claim against an oil major in respect of outstanding invoices for hire of oil and gas equipment; a claim under a Global Collaboration Agreement and multiple claims in respect of infringement of Intellectual Property Rights. B Borough Council v. HG Limited (ad hoc, Seat London) (2017) - Appointed as Counsel to the arbitration. SYE v. M (ICC, Seat Geneva) (2013-2016) - Acted for Japanese Respondents with Defence and Counterclaim for $13.5m against Turkish Sub-Contractor Claims of $4.5m in respect of a very large railway infrastructure project in Istanbul. H. v. X Corp. (DIAC, Seat Dubai) (2011-2013) - Dispute between Scandinavian JV interest and a US party. ($1.5m). Construction and engineering David Parratt KC (Scot) is a specialist in construction, engineering, and energy disputes (including oil/gas upstream claims), with a particular focus on projects involving complex factual, technical, and contractual disputes. He has extensive experience in the TCC and the Commercial Court in the UK, and under various institutional rules (ICC; LCIA; LMAA; ADCAAC). David is a member of the ICC, the LCIA, the CIArb (Scottish Branch) Panel of Arbitrators, the Hong Kong Arbitration Panel (HKIAC), member of the Asian International Arbitration Panel (AIAC), the Cairo Arbitration Panel (CRCICA), the WIPO Panel (Geneva), the Dubai International Arbitration Centre List (DIAC), the CIArb London President’s Panel and the Juris Roster of International Arbitrators. Recent and Ongoing cases M. v. S (IAC, 2022) - Counsel for Claimant in Electricity Supply Dispute and JVA, share valuation £100m. NHT v K (CIMAR 2022) - Advising in respect of a claim in arbitration for construction defects in a Housing Scheme. Arbitrator in dispute re professional fees relating to NEC3 terms and conditions (Northern Ireland, 2022) Co Arbitrator re Abu Dhabi airport construction dispute (2022) Woodstone Carpentry Limited v Crystal Engineering Limited - Ongoing dispute in connection with installation of FRA on Post Grenfell Tower Buildings in London Boroughs. (2022; High Court). S. v N (LCIA London Seat, 2021) - Counsel in dispute between Aberdeen Oil parts manufacturer and US company granted IPR rights in respect of non-exploitation. J v. T, C & A (ADCAAC, Seat Abu Dhabi) (2021 Award) - Appointed as co-arbitrator in connection with construction works on a major infrastructure project. Scottish Ministers v Contractors re M74; M77 and M8 (large infrastructure project) (2020) D v E (DIAC, LCIA, 2020) - Advising Dubai based companies in respect of ongoing obligations to Oil part Supply Agreements and on prospects regarding two separate arbitration clauses (£1m). Advice on arbitration clause under Option W2 in NEC3 (2019) Z v. GSP (LCIA, Seat London, 2019) - Instructed for Claimants in a $5m claim and cross claim for a subcontractor in dispute with a Contractor in respect of the operation of a Platform off the coast of Greece. (settled) Advice in respect of Notice of Intention to Refer under cl 93 NEC3 (2018) OMS v US Oil Major (LCIA, Seat London) (2017-2018) - Represented a small two director company in a £6m claim against an oil major in respect of outstanding invoices for hire of oil and gas equipment; a claim under a Global Collaboration Agreement and multiple claims in respect of infringement of IP Rights. Successful. Advice to adjudicator re NEC3 on project Blackpool Pier (2017) SYE v. M (ICC, Seat Geneva) 2013-2016 - Acted for Japanese Respondents with Defence and Counterclaim for $13.5m against Turkish Sub-Contractor Claims of $4.5m in respect of a very large railway infrastructure project in Istanbul. Neutrals Adjudicator's David Parratt KC (Scot) is a well known adjudicator and counsel to adjudicators in construction, engineering and energy disputes. Adjudications M73 Motorway Spur Construction Dispute Adjudication (2018) In this large and high profile adjudication he was retained by the Scottish Government in respect of a claim made by a JV of contractors. Queensferry Bridge Crossing Adjudication (2018) In this large and high profile case he was retained by the Adjudicator as Counsel to the adjudication. David advised in respect of procedure and challenges to his jurisdiction.

David Berkley KC

Overview David Berkley KC has been advising and representing clients in business disputes for more than 30 years and enjoys a substantial practice in London and across the UK. David has a busy practice assisting in the resolution of complex disputes in the fields of commercial litigation, banking disputes, and employment. David became 3PB’s Head of Chambers in 2019 and is a senior member of 3PB’s Commercial and Chancery Groups. David is a qualified mediator (College of Law accredited) and is willing to act as arbitrator in commercial disputes. He is also a popular choice for direct access instructions. David's legal expertise includes: Business and Commercial Property Employment Professional Negligence Regulatory and Professional Ethics Entertainment law. He adopts a practical approach working closely with clients and their solicitors, and business clients direct. David is also a frequent lecturer having conducted many seminars in-house at Herbert Smith Freehills, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and other leading City and UK regional law firms. Outside the office, David was a founder, and remains a member, of the Executive Council of the Muslim Jewish Forum of Greater Manchester. He has an interest in academic and vocational training including a long association with Nottingham Law School and the National Institute for Trial Advocacy and was formerly an Honorary Teaching Fellow at Manchester Law School. He is currently acting as consulting editor for Halsbury’s Law. Commercial David Berkley KC is Head of the Commercial Group. His practice covers commercial and commercial/chancery litigation, including banking and finance litigation. His practice focuses on complex disputes and major trial work and he regularly appears in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in contentious security and receivership issues; civil fraud trials; insolvency and company law. He frequently advises in and acts on behalf of professional clients in disputes relating to partnerships; restrictive covenants; confidentiality and trade secrets, most notably within the professional practice of solicitors’ and accountants’. Most recently, David has been recognised for his work in relation to advising and acting for businesses seeking redress for the mis-selling of Interest Rate Hedging Products via the FCA / FSA Review process and litigation in the High Court. He has extensive experience dealing with the subsequent professional negligence issues arising from such disputes; especially those relating to the provision of financial services. Reported cases: Courage Shipping Co v OCM Maritime Nile LLC [2022] EWCA Civ 1091 On the proper construction of a charterparty, the owners of two vessels had been entitled to repossess the vessels upon an event of default without giving notice to the charterers of the aggregate amount to be paid upon termination. Further, in the circumstances, the charterers were not entitled to relief from forfeiture. Alta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2021] EWCA Civ 687 In claims brought against a de facto CEO and de facto CFO of companies in a group, a jurisdictional challenge brought by the Swiss-domiciled defendants was dismissed where it was found that they had a non-negligible influence over the companies so that they were not in a relationship of subordination and were accordingly not employees for the purposes of the Lugano Convention 2007 art.18(1). Therefore, art.20(1) did not operate to oust the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Rockliffe Hall Ltd v Travelers Insurance Co Ltd [2021] EWHC 412 (Comm) Business interruption cover provided by an insurer for loss resulting from an outbreak of "Infectious Disease" did not cover COVID-19 related losses. The policy had defined "Infectious Disease" by reference to a closed and exhaustive list of 34 diseases which did not include COVID-19. The listed disease, "Plague", referred to a specific disease rather than a more general term for any infectious disease with a high mortality rate, epidemic or pandemic, and so did not encompass COVID-19. Alta Trading UK Ltd v Bosworth [2020] EWHC 2757 (Comm) The claimants had a good arguable case that there was not a relationship of subordination, and therefore not an employment relationship, between a group of companies and their former chief executive and chief financial officers for the purposes of a challenge to the English court's jurisdiction. Target Rich International Ltd v Forex Capital Markets Ltd [2020] EWHC 1544 (Comm) Financial regulation; Banking and finance. Breach of contract; Conduct of business sourcebooks; Damages; Force majeure; Foreign exchange; Implied terms; Incorporation; Negligence; Rules Bhattacharya v Omni Capital Partners Ltd [2020] EWHC 1644 (Ch) A claim under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Pt II s.28(7) for repayment of monies under a loan agreement was a claim for recovery of money arising only under that statute, and was accordingly subject to a six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980 s.9, despite a claim also being made for a declaration that the loan was unenforceable. The repayment claim was time barred under s.9 as the payments had been made more than six years before proceedings were issued. Sharp v Blank [2019] EWHC 3096 (Ch) The defendant directors of Lloyds TSB Group Plc were not in breach of duty in recommending that shareholders should approve the acquisition of HBOS Plc during the developing financial crisis in 2008; the circular sent to shareholders before they voted to approve the transaction should have disclosed the existence of certain funding arrangements made available to HBOS by Lloyds and the Bank of England but the failure to disclose those arrangements was not causative, since the shareholders would have approved the transaction if there had been a fair presentation of those arrangements in the circular. Parmar and another v Barclays Bank plc [2018] EWHC 1027 (Ch) Swap agreement – Interest rate swap agreement. Although the claimants had established that there had been breaches of certain of the Conduct of Business Sourcebook (COBS) rules, no loss had been sustained by them as a result. Therefore, the Chancery Division, dismissed the claimants' claim, under s 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, for damages for alleged breaches of the COBS rules. Wardman and others v GSD Law Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 2144 Costs — Detailed assessment — Solicitor’s misconduct — Paying parties alleging that receiving parties’ legal representative had engaged in unreasonable or improper conduct during detailed assessment proceedings — District judge upholding allegations and disallowing costs after three-day hearing — Whether jurisdiction to disallow costs summary — Whether district judge should have declined to entertain allegations — Whether three-day hearing disproportionate — Whether guidance as to wasted costs procedure to be applied — CPRr 44.11 Bailey and another company v Barclays Bank plc [2014] EWHC 2882 (QB) Practice – Striking out. The claimant, B, had arranged a loan with the defendant bank. He subsequently sought to transfer the loan from himself to a company that he controlled. B and the company brought proceedings against the bank for, among other things, misrepresentation. In the course of proceedings, the bank sought to strike out the claim, and the claimants sought permission to amend the particulars of claim. The Queen's Bench Division held that the application to amend would be dismissed, and judgment would be given for the bank. Pourghazi v Kamyab [2014] Lexis Citation 155 Misrepresentation – Deceit. The claimant brought a claim against the defendant, alleging that he had been induced into lending him money in respect of the purchase of a leasehold penthouse in London and into signing a declaration of trust in respect of it, in circumstances where the defendant had not disclosed that a bank had appointed receivers in connection with the property. The Chancery Division set aside the declaration of trust, ruling that the misrepresentations alleged had been proved. Lombard-Knight and another v Rainstorm Pictures Inc [2014] EWCA Civ 356 Arbitration – Award – Enforcement – Application to enforce award – Claimant successful in arbitration proceedings in California – Claimant obtaining enforcement order in High Court – Defendants applying to set aside order – Judge finding claimant failing to comply with procedural requirements for applying to enforce award – Judge finding defendants' submissions unsustainable – Judge making new enforcement order – Defendants appealing and claimant cross-appealing – Whether judge erring in finding procedural irregularity in claimant's application – Whether judge erring in finding defendants having had notice of arbitral proceedings – Arbitration Act 1996, s 102(1)(b). Green and another v Royal Bank of Scotland [2013] EWCA Civ 1197 Bank – Duty of care. The claimants issued proceedings claiming that the defendant bank had 'mis-sold' them an interest rate swap by giving inadequate disclosure of break costs, contrary to its duty under the Code of Business Rules then in existence, and to warn that break costs could be substantial and to explain clearly and fairly the true potential magnitude of those costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld a decision that the bank had not owed the claimants a common law duty of care which had involved taking reasonable care to ensure that they had understood the nature of the risks involved in entering into the swap transaction. Ahmad v Secret Garden (Cheshire) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1005 Contract – Rectification – Written contract – Appellant lessor of property entering into tenancy with respondent company – Parties going through standard form of business lease (LS2), agreeing to amend it to reflect particular terms agreed – Parties signing written agreement for lease on those terms (Lease 1) – Parties subsequently signing lease in form LS2 not containing amendments shown in Lease 1 (Lease 2) – Respondent going into possession but having difficulties paying rent – Appellant taking proceedings for possession of property – Respondent contending Lease 2 ought to be rectified as not setting out full terms agreed by parties – Judge holding parties both mistaken as to effect of terms of Lease 2 and mistakenly believing would take effect in combination with Lease 1 – Judge holding Lease 2 accordingly being executed under mistake – Appellant appealing – Whether evidence from which judge finding common mistake meeting requirement for outward expression of accord – Whether judge ought to have exercised discretion to refuse to order rectification. Re SED Essex Ltd Revenue and Customs Commissioners v SED Essex Ltd [2013] EWHC 1583 (Ch) Company – Winding up – Fraudulent trading – Revenue and Customs Commissioners (the Revenue) seeking compulsory winding-up order regarding respondent company – Court appointing provisional liquidators – Company opposing winding-up order and seeking to discharge order appointing provisional liquidators – Whether winding-up order to continue – Whether provisional liquidators to remain appointed. Rehman and another v Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd [2013] EWHC 1339 (QB) Limitation of action – Accrual of cause of action. The claimants issued proceedings against the defendant for negligent property valuations. The judge dismissed the defendant's application for summary judgment or strike out of the claim. The defendant appealed on the basis that the claim was statute-barred. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the claimants had acquired the requisite knowledge to issue proceedings and could not begin to justify the period of two years during which they apparently did nothing. Connell Property Holdings Ltd and another v Mutch (trading as Southey Building Services) and another [2012] EWCA Civ 1589 Costs – Order for costs – Discretion – Second claimant succeeding partially in claim against defendant – Defendant succeeding on counterclaim – Judge setting off damages payable to defendant under counterclaim against damages awarded to second claimant – Claimant being overall successful party – Judge ordering defendant to pay second claimant's costs of claim and ordering second claimant to pay defendant's costs of counterclaim – Second claimant appealing – Second claimant submitting judge being required to order defendant to pay proportion of second claimant's overall costs – Whether judge erring – CPR Pt 44. Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office v Backhouse [2012] EWCA Civ 1000 Sentence – Confiscation order – Receivership order – Defendant owning equal share in aircraft – Joint owner pleading guilty to laundering – Judge making confiscation order of joint owner's assets – Judge appointing enforcement receiver to take possession of and deal with assets of joint owner – Defendant agreeing to extinguish joint owner's liabilities in regard to aircraft – Receiver seeking order joint owner making tainted gift to defendant – Judge finding no commercial sense in joint owner giving up interest in aircraft – Judge making order against defendant – Defendant appealing – Whether judge erring – Criminal Justice Act 1988, ss 74, 102. Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office v Johnson and another [2011] EWHC 1950 (Admin) Sentence – Confiscation order – Proceeds of crime – Defendant pleading guilty to laundering £6.25 million – Judge making confiscation order for over £26 million – Judge appointing enforcement receiver to take possession of and deal with assets of defendant – Aircraft specifically excluded from list of assets receiver might sell – Respondent beneficially owning aircraft – Whether respondent having assets to which receiver entitled for satisfaction of confiscation order – Criminal Justice Act 1988, Pt VI. Hooper and another v Oates and another [2010] EWCA Civ 1346 Contract – Repudiation – Rescission – Seller of property serving rescission notice in response to alleged breach of contract by defendant – Claimant erring in calculation of dates for service of notice – Notice being served early – Buyer contending early notice amounting to repudiatory breach – Judge finding sellers not repudiating contract – Whether judge erring. Hameed v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWHC 2009 (QB) Employment – Wrongful dismissal – Declaration – Employee dismissed following investigation and disciplinary hearing into claimant's conduct – Employee bringing proceedings seeking declaration that purported dismissal in breach of her contract of employment – Whether employer in breach of its contractual obligations to employee. Sternlight v Barclays Bank and other cases [2010] EWHC 1865 (QB) Consumer credit – Agreement – Form and content of agreement – Term stating manner in which amount to be repaid – Regulated agreement – Claimants contending rate of interest set out in regulated agreements misstated with effect agreements 'irredeemably unenforceable' – Whether misstatement – Consumer Credit Act 1974, ss 61, 65, 127 – Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, SI 1983/1553, Sch 6, para 4. Saddique v Sadiq and another Court of Appeal, Civil Division (judgment delivered extempore) Practice – Striking out – Abuse of process – Claimant appointed as receiver of missing husband's assets – Claimant seeking to bring action in her name in respect of husbands assets – Defendant seeking to strike out claim as abuse of process and on ground that claimant as receiver having no authority to bring claim – Case struck out on ground that claimant lacking authority – Claimant appealing – Whether judge erring – Whether order entitling claimant to bring claim – Whether proceedings could have been saved – CPR 17.9. Southern Pacific Personal Loans Ltd v Walker and another [2009] EWCA Civ 1218 Consumer credit – Agreement – Enforcement – Amount of credit – Interest on charge for credit – Parties entering into fixed sum credit agreement – Total amount financed comprising of loaned amount plus charge for credit stated in agreement to be 'broker administration fee' – Statutory meaning of 'credit' and 'charge for credit' – Calculation of amount of credit – Whether prohibition of interest on broker administration fee – Whether agreement between parties enforceable – Consumer Credit Act 1974, s 9.

Derek Pye

Overview Derek Pye is a Chartered arbitrator (since 1998); registered adjudicator; advocate; expert determiner and accredited mediator of the CIArb. Derek’s main activity is as sole arbitrator or adjudicator and he has produced over 100 arbitration awards and over 200 adjudicator’s decisions He accepts appointments mainly in construction, engineering, general commercial disputes and aviation law related matters. Derek is a multi-engine, instrument rated commercial pilot. He was consultant construction expert in the BBC third series of Rogue Traders and made personal television appearances in two of the programmes in the series. Construction and engineering Derek is a practising Barrister, Arbitrator, Adjudicator Mediator and Expert Witness as well as a Chartered Quantity Surveyor. His career in the construction industry has spanned decades working for contracting and consultancy organisations in the UK and overseas including the USA, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Italy and in Saudi Arabia with French, Italian and Korean contractors. Derek’s early experience in the architectural field included eight years spent in the planning, design and on and off-site supervision of major housing schemes. This was followed by a career move into quantity surveying, firstly in housing, but later, and more predominantly, into the industrial and commercial sectors. His contracting experience with major UK and French international building and civil engineering companies was broad and he advised UK design and build contractors and specialist structural steelwork companies, on contracts with values in excess of £1,500 million. Derek’s current consultancy experience involves the management and resolution of construction and engineering disputes by negotiation, mediation, conciliation, adjudication, litigation and arbitration, with disputed amounts in excess of £40 million. Derek prepares Expert Reports on behalf of clients in contemplation of litigation and arbitration. He has acted as an expert witness in construction disputes on multi-million pound quantum matters and planning inquiries and been subject to cross-examination by Counsel in arbitration and the TCC. Arbitration Various appointments including Arbitrator in SGL Carbon Fibers Ltd v RBG Ltd [2012] CSOH 19 Expert Witness Derek was instructed as an Expert on behalf of Motherwell Bridge in the TCC case of Motherwell Bridge Ltd v Micafil Vacuumtechnik. He was instructed on behalf of DEFRA in Ruttle Plant Ltd v DEFRA (SoSFE) Adjudication Derek has been appointed as Adjudicator to on a £3m dispute on a holiday centre complex concerning the supply and erection of modular units relating to alleged delays and consequent losses and damages. Mediation Derek is an accredited mediator of the CIArb.

Elizabeth Gooderham

Elizabeth Gooderham is a very experienced family law advocate who, after an early career at the bar undertaking both criminal and family law now specialises solely in all aspects of child-care law. She joined 3PB in August 2023 from a specialist family law chambers. Elizabeth specialises in public and complex private law proceedings. Elizabeth is a thorough and detailed advocate with an ability to get to the heart of the matter. She has a sensitive and understanding approach when dealing with vulnerable clients, including those with learning difficulties and disabilities, mental health difficulties, young parents and competent children. Elizabeth acts on behalf of local authorities, parents, children’s guardians, competent children and intervenors in a wide range of cases, including: • Serious non-accidental injury • Sexual abuse • Concurrent criminal proceedings • Chronic neglect • Drug and alcohol abuse (including FDAC proceedings) • Parents with mental health difficulties • Adoption • Special Guardianship • Domestic Violence • Child arrangements disputes • Parental alienation Outside of busy work commitments, Elizabeth has a recently acquired passion for horse-riding, something which she likes to do as often as she can, including competing in local events. She also h loves spending time walking her two dogs with her family. She also enjoys spending time with friends, travelling and running, having completed the London marathon in 2020 and 2021. Family Elizabeth Gooderham is a highly experienced senior family barrister who specialises in public and complex private law proceedings. Notable Cases include: Re W [2023]: Elizabeth represented a father in public law proceedings who had a negative parenting assessment. The care plan for the children was long term foster care. Elizabeth, through cross-examination challenged the author of the parenting assessment who conceded that there were flaws in her report and that there was a gap in the evidence which required further assessment. The court adjourned the final hearing for further assessment of the father to consider returning all of the children to his care. Re W [2022]: Elizabeth represented a father in public law proceedings at fact-finding hearing and final hearing who was vulnerable and had mental health issues including severe anxiety. The parents were alleged to have caused significant injury to their baby including a multiple fractures and bruising. The father accepted he could not say he had not caused the injuries due to significant drug misuse at the time. The mother alleged the father alone had caused the injuries and that he had been controlling and coercive towards her. Elizabeth challenged the case of the mother and the judge concluded that not only did the mother remain in the pool of perpetrators but that she was the dominant individual within the relationship and father feared her reaction if her needs were not met. Re P & L [2022]: Elizabeth represented the Local Authority at fact-finding hearing and final hearing in a High Court case where the mother was alleged of murdering one of the children. The case involved concurrent criminal proceedings in which the mother was convicted of manslaughter. The case also included multiple parties including two fathers and extended family members who were caring for the children. Re D [2021]; Elizabeth represented a vulnerable young intervenor in private law proceedings in which the intervenor made allegations of sexual abuse against the father (her step-father). The court found all of the allegations made by the intervenor proved.

Eloise Turnnidge

Overview Eloise is a personal injury barrister with a busy practice representing both Claimants and Defendants. She appears in court most days - covering trials, CCMCs and interim applications - in addition to maintaining her paperwork and advisory practice. Eloise frequently acts for Defendants, at trial and in the earlier stages of litigation, in claims involving allegations of fundamental dishonesty. She has persuaded the court to make findings of fundamental dishonesty, including findings of ‘phantom’ occupancy and staged or fabricated accidents, on a number of occasions. She has also secured a number of mid-trial drop hands offers. Her cross-examination has been described by the judiciary as “detailed and strong forensic examination” and she is known for pursuing matters “assiduously”. Eloise’s multi-track work is predominantly Claimant based. She has assisted throughout the life of a number of cases and offered strategic advice accordingly, resulting in favourable settlements. Her Defendant practice also enables her to anticipate challenges and address potential issues at an early stage. Eloise has a strong paperwork practice, advising and settling pleadings in matters worth over £100,000. She is adept at handling high value claims involving multi-disciplinary expert evidence, and has advised in both expert and client conferences. She is comfortable engaging with complex causation and quantum issues, as well as Ogden future loss calculations. Eloise is developing her clinical negligence practice, including fatal accidents covering both the FAA 1976 and the LR(MP)A 1934. She has appeared in court and advised on many fatal claims worth over £100,000. Eloise was recognised as a ‘Rising Star’ in the 2022 and 2023 editions of the Legal 500: Eloise is “excellent tactically with significant insight and experience to progress complex cases in fraught situations”, with an “excellent eye for detail” and “a real ability to grasp the key points of claim.” Outside of work, Eloise enjoys snowboarding, salsa and running. Personal Injury Eloise’s experience incorporates the following areas of law: Employers’ liability Occupiers’ liability Public liability Road traffic accidents Credit hire Holiday illness Accidents abroad Highways Act Eloise Turnnidge accepts instructions for hearings and paperwork such as: Trials CCMCs Interim applications, including: Strike out and summary judgment Expert evidence Disclosure (including specific and non-party) Procedural (Part 20, service, set aside judgment) Limitation (section 33) Drafting pleadings and interim applications Advising on liability, causation, quantum and costs Recent cases include: S v S [2022] - Eloise obtained the dismissal of claims brought against her client’s insured driver, where there were significant concerns regarding causation of injury, balanced with liability issues on the Defendant’s side, with the Claimant’s primary case on liability aligning with the insured driver’s account. Q v U and P [2022] - Eloise obtained a significantly reduced award in respect of a credit hire claim, persuading the judge to reduce the figure of approximately £12,000 to just £450. N v S and H [2022] - Eloise acted for the successful Second Defendant in a strike out application, with issues engaging the principles in Cameron v Hussain [2019], defective service and other procedural issues. Eloise also assisted with the subsequent appeal, advising in respect of tactics and next steps, with the Claimant then abandoning his appeal. B v H [2022] - Eloise acted for the Claimant from the outset of proceedings in this liability-disputed, multi-track (>£100,000) public liability claim with disputed, multi-disciplinary expert evidence. Eloise advised in conference, settled pleadings including the schedule of loss, and attended hearings through to PTR, advising on tactics and assisting in obtaining a substantial settlement for the client. P and P v O [2022] - Eloise obtained settlement in terms that the Claimants do pay the Defendant’s costs, following her cross-examination of the Claimants and their subsequent drop hands offer. R v I [2021] - Eloise acted for the Claimant in this RTA matter, where the Claimant sustained head injuries and psychological disorders. Her loss of earnings claim was complicated by the Covid-19 pandemic and pre-existing symptoms, however Eloise’s advice led to a substantial settlement without the need to issue proceedings. K v U [2021] - Acting for the Defendant, Eloise obtained findings of fundamental dishonesty and phantom occupancy in this liability-disputed matter. N and S v H [2021] - Eloise obtained findings of fundamental dishonesty in both claims in this matter, in which the Claimants alleged injuries arising out of an RTA, despite a lack of witness evidence for the Defendants. C v K [2021] - Eloise secured a finding of fundamental dishonesty in this RTA matter in which the court accepted that the collision was caused by a ‘deliberate and calculated act of the Claimant’, with the judge also stating that she was unable to accept the Claimant had sustained any injury. S v T [2020] - In this remote trial in which the Claimant was only able to connect via audio, Eloise acted for the Defendant and persuaded the judge to make a finding of fundamental dishonesty. The judge accepted that the Claimant had fabricated the accident. S v E [2020] - In this claim worth approximately £50,000, arising out of an RTA for which liability was disputed, Eloise acted for the successful Defendant, securing dismissal of the claim on liability. M v R [2020] - In this RTA matter, Eloise acted for the Defendant and obtained a finding of fundamental dishonesty, with the judge finding with ‘no hesitation’ that an alleged RTA had not taken place. Eloise highlighted inconsistencies in bank statements, odometer readings and the Claimant’s accounts surrounding the alleged injuries. S v R [2020] - Eloise obtained a drop hands settlement in this credit hire matter, following her cross-examination of the Claimant at trial. R v G [2019] - Eloise acted for the Defendant in this RTA matter, securing a strike out on the basis of principles set out in Cameron v Hussain [2019]. Clinical Negligence Eloise Turnnidge is happy to accept instructions in the following clinical negligence specialisms: Misdiagnosis Delayed diagnosis Negligent nursing care Surgical negligence Dental negligence Cosmetic negligence

Emma Waldron

Overview Emma Waldron is a sought after practitioner and skilled advocate in the field of Education Law. She has a very busy practice and finds herself in Court or in Tribunal regularly. This is carefully managed alongside a busy paperwork practice. Emma’s practice has led her to deal with clients in the High Court, Upper Tribunal, County Court and First Tier Tribunal. Emma’s client base is wide-ranging and includes parents, students, childminders and local authorities, as well as some of the most prestigious schools and universities in the country. Emma has significant experience in conducting investigations on behalf of schools and universities which have included safeguarding allegations of the utmost severity. She conducts such investigations with care, diligence, and sensitivity. Emma also has substantial experience in the Care Standards Tribunal, frequently advising nursery providers and childminders at risk of cancellation and suspension following serious allegations being raised against them. Within Emma’s prolific Education practice, she has been instructed on a number of cases involving complex social and health care issues. As a former Teaching Assistant and Governor at a Maintained Special School for children with severe profound and multiple learning difficulties, Emma has a strong interest in dealing with cases within the SEN arena. Emma’s knowledge and experience within the care industry gives her a real sense of what good care is. Her first-hand experience in the industry has been of real benefit to her clients when Emma has advised on matters that involve care homes, nurseries, childminders or serious safeguarding issues. The service that Emma provides to her lay clients is second to none and has been proven when dealing with her many cases of a sensitive nature. Education Emma is regularly instructed on behalf of parents, young persons, independent schools, academies, charities, local authorities and universities advising on all aspects of Education Law. Emma regularly works in the following areas of Education Law: SEND Disability and Race Discrimination Educational Negligence Ofsted Appeals Safeguarding Judicial Review Complex admissions arrangements and appeals Exclusions Breach of Contract Debt Recovery Deprivation of Liberty (DOLS) Academic Appeals and Fitness to Practice SEND and Disability Discrimination Emma has over 10 years of experience in dealing with cases in the SEND Tribunal. This has included appeals against refusals to assess need, appeals against failures to secure EHC Plans, EHC Plan content appeals, and "cease to maintain” appeals. Emma has extensive experience in dealing with cases involving 52 or 38 week residential placements. She also has considerable experience in cases involving education otherwise than in school. Emma is regularly instructed in complex appeals which involve interrelated health and social care issues. In relation to disability discrimination claims, Emma has experience in the County Court, High Court, First Tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal, acting on behalf of parents, students, independent schools and universities. Emma’s client base includes some of the most prestigious schools and universities in the country. As a former Teaching Assistant and Governor at a Maintained Special School for children with severe profound and multiple learning difficulties, Emma has first-hand experience of the special school sector which she is able to draw on in her practise. Reported cases include the following: RB v Calderdale MBC (SEN) [2022] UKUT 136 [2022] (AAC) MS and NS v Hertfordshire CC (SEN) [2022] UKUT 102 (AAC) NE and DE v Southampton City Council (SEN) [2019] UKUT 388 (AAC) JJ & EE v Buckinghamshire Council: [2022] UKUT 345 (AAC) OFSTED Emma’s experience of successfully challenging decisions made by Ofsted is considerable. She regularly acts for childminders and nurseries in the Care Standards Tribunal, challenging suspension and cancellation decisions, as well as refusals to register. The subject matter of these appeals is often extremely sensitive and emotionally highly charged. Emma is both pragmatic and thoughtful in her approach to these cases, and Emma has significant experience of negotiating settlements outside the Tribunal. Examples of Emma’s work in the Care Standards Tribunal can be seen in the following reported cases: OB v Ofsted [2023] 4822.EY-SUS F v Ofsted [2023] 4957.EY-SUS Emma has also delivered advice and training to Schools on judicially reviewing the contents of Ofsted reports. Safeguarding Emma has conducted a number of complex investigations concerning matters of safeguarding for universities, colleges and independent schools. These investigations have ranged from allegations against senior members of staff to allegations of peer-on-peer abuse. Emma’s knowledge and experience in the fields of education law and the care sector enable her to conduct such matters with fairness and sensitivity. Emma has experience of conducting investigations where there may be overlapping regulatory or criminal proceedings. Judicial Review Emma is regularly instructed by parents and Local Authorities in judicial review proceedings involving section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014, section 19 of the Education Act 1996 and Article 2 of Protocol 1 ECHR. More recently, Emma successfully acted on behalf of a Local Authority in a judicial review claim against a grammar school’s decision to deny a pupil the opportunity to sit the 11+ examination following their late application. Breach of Contract/Educational Negligence claims Having previously practised in the field of personal injury and clinical negligence, Emma is highly experienced in civil litigation and is regularly instructed to advise in County Court and High Court claims against schools and universities. Noteworthy claims have included the following: Successfully acting for Queen Mary, University of London in a race discrimination claim. Successfully striking out a claim against Newcastle University pleaded at in excess of £200,000. Successfully defending a breach of contract claim against a prestigious single sex independent school. Mediation Emma is an ADR Group Accredited Mediator. Court of Protection Emma's practice in the fields of Education Law and Personal Injury Law has, in recent years, led her to advise on matters of capacity and issues involving the Court of Protection. She has a particularly strong interest in: Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding Issues surrounding consent to medical treatment Lasting Powers of Attorney Deputyship. Having previously worked in the care industry and in special schools, Emma has a unique insight into questions of care and capacity. She recently delivered a talk on the Care Act 2015 and its interplay with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. She is happy to take instructions from local authorities or individuals. Recent cases: Re MD: acting on behalf of the Official Solicitor in relation to an application to revoke an LPA and appoint a Welfare Deputy Re ALS: acting on behalf of the Official Solicitor in respect of challenge to a standard authorisation which deprived P of his liberty Re FL: acting on behalf of the Applicant who was seeking to oppose the registration of an LPA which had been purportedly obtained by duress Re RB: judicial review proceedings, challenging a local authority's decision that the Applicant was not eligible for care and assistance under the Care Act 2014. Public and Regulatory Emma Waldron is an expert in all aspects of education law and in regulatory proceedings. Emma is regularly instructed on behalf of parents, young persons, independent schools, academies, charities, local authorities and universities advising on all aspects of education law. Emma also has substantial experience in the Care Standards Tribunal, frequently advising nursery providers and childminders at risk of cancellation and suspension following serious allegations being raised against them. As a former Teaching Assistant and Governor at a Maintained Special School for children with severe profound and multiple learning difficulties, Emma has a strong interest in matters within the SEND field. Emma also has extensive experience in providing training to schools and expert witnesses on Ofsted Appeals and has advised numerous clients on challenging Ofsted decisions. For instance, in January 2023, she successfully acted for a registered childminder in getting their suspension lifted in an appeal against Ofsted.

Faizul Azman

Overview Faizul Azman is an experienced barrister specialising in intellectual property law. Based at 3PB’s London office, Faizul brings a unique skillset to his legal practice, shaped by his unconventional background that includes serving in the British Army and UK Civil Service before joining 3PB. Faizul’s career in the Civil Service saw him work across multiple government departments, including the Home Office and UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). While at the Home Office, Faizul handed some of the most contentious issues in immigration and asylum policy, leading a team responsible for managing statutory appeals in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. As an Assistant Director, he led on the Northern Ireland and EU exit strategy, focussing on security and customs. As a Senior Policy Advisor at the UKIPO, Faizul represented the UK at the World Intellectual Property Organisation in Geneva and regularly negotiated legal texts in EU working groups in Brussels. Faizul was part of the team that implemented the Marrakesh Treaty into both EU and UK law and managed the UK’s copyright exceptions policy. His work included advising senior government ministers, responding to complex copyright enquiries, and engaging with diverse stakeholders. Faizul’s broad experience in managing high-pressure, complex legal and policy matters, both as a barrister and civil servant, gives him a unique ability to not only advise on legal issues but also identify reputational risks and commercial opportunities for his clients. With a deep understanding of both national and international frameworks, Faizul provides counsel to domestic and international clients. Intellectual property Faizul specialises in a broad range of intellectual property law including copyright, trade marks, design rights, confidential information, and related areas such as contract, employment, education, commercial law and artificial intelligence. Prior to joining Chambers, Faizul served as a Senior Policy Advisor at the UKIPO, where he represented the UK at the World Intellectual Property Organisation in Geneva and in EU working groups in Brussels. Faizul’s experience in managing high-pressure, complex legal and policy matters gives him a unique ability to advise on legal issues, as well as identify both commercial opportunities and reputational risks for his clients. His expertise has led to instructions from renowned global brands and small and medium sized businesses. Faizul is known for working closely with his clients, providing clear and practical advice. Recent Cases Trade Marks and Passing Off: Enterprise Holdings v EUIPO (T/499/23 and T/500/23) – For Enterprise, drafted the grounds of appeal to the General Court of the CJEU to annul the decisions of the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO regarding the mark ‘QOMMUTE’. Enterprise Holdings v Free2move SAS (R 2311/2023-4) – For Enterprise, drafted the grounds of appeal to the EUIPO Boards of Appeal regarding the registered and non-registered ‘e’ marks. NRJ Group Société Anonyme de Droit Français v Hard Carry Gaming, Inc – For NRJ, led by Victoria Jones in an appeal to the Appointed Person contesting the decision (O/0340/23) of the UKIPO relating to the mark ‘NRG’. Britvic Soft Drinks Limited v Blue Ice Machines Limited (IPEC) – For Britvic, at CMC relating to the mark ‘ICE BLAST’. Netflix Studios v JJ Beanos – For the Applicant, a trade mark Opposition in the UKIPO for the mark ‘LADY WHISTLEDOWN’ – a dispute relating to the ‘Bridgerton’ Netflix series. Gowers v Athena Cosmetics, Inc (RevitaLash Cosmetics) – For Athena, a trade mark Revocation in the UKIPO relating to the marks ‘KILLER LASHES’ and ‘KILLER BROWS’. H v E (IPEC) – For the Claimant, infringement and passing off relating to counterfeit goods. Re: Yiamas – For the Opponent, a trade mark Opposition in UKIPO. Recent advisory work includes: Award of costs following judgment of the General Court of the CJEU. Challenging the UKIPO’s preliminary view in refusing a Proprietor’s request to exclude evidence at a hearing. Infringement relating to advertising ‘keywords’ on Google. Character merchandising. Goodwill following the dissolution/liquidation of a company. Copyright, Databases, Domain Names and Confidential Information Re: Sky UK Limited (IPEC) – For Sky, several copyright infringement claims relating to illicit internet protocol television streaming services. Insource Select Limited v Robbin (KB 2002-0044-8) – High Court, Kings Bench Division. Advised Insource and their legal team (led by Alice Mayhew KC) on possible IP infringement claims and to make amendments to the Particulars of Claim. The claim relates to breach of restrictive covenants. Mirza Video Entertainment Limited v Karman Entertainment Limited (IL-2022-BHM-000002) – For Mirza, advised and successfully transferred the claim from the Intellectual Property List to the IPEC. Daemonlinks Ltd v Brown [2022] EWHC 1154 (IPEC) – For Brown, following an application for summary judgment, advised and represented Brown for CMC on the ‘fallout’ issues. P v A – For the Claimant (author), a contract dispute when a publisher continued to advertise and sell their book after the publishing agreement was terminated. PS v C – For the Claimant, a claim relating to domain squatting. Recent advisory work includes: Ownership of copyright works created by directors, employees, contractors, and university students. Restoring a company and the beneficial interest in a domain name and development code when a company is dissolved. Infringement on the use of hyperlinks. Film director rights when a film is assigned to a third-party which formed part of a settlement agreement. Infringement when using certain materials on social media. Infringement when websites are copied/look similar. Jurisdictional/evidential issues relating to assignments of copyright outside of the UK. Copyright licences. Limitation on acts of copyright infringement. Direct Access Faizul Azman is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Access scheme.

Gabriel Adedeji

Overview Gabriel enjoys a varied practice, spanning Personal Injury, Public and Regulatory Law, and Regulatory Crime. Gabriel also accepts instructions in a wide range of other Civil, Property and Commercial matters, from mortgage possession claims and landlord and tenant disputes, to charging orders, orders for sale, bankruptcy and more. Gabriel is most frequently instructed in personal injury and public and regulatory matters including professional disciplinary proceedings and police law. He has a depth of experience and his manner with professional and lay clients alike, has seen him grow relationships and build on regular, repeat instructions. In his down time, Gabriel enjoys acting and singing and has appeared on stage and television. He plays the piano and the saxophone and is a member of the Middle Temple Revels, appearing in the annual comedy review in Middle Temple Hall for the past eight years, and in last year’s digitally streamed performance. Personal Injury Gabriel is instructed in a variety of Fast Track and Multi-Track Personal Injury matters, appearing in court regularly on behalf of both Claimants and Defendants. Gabriel is most frequently instructed in cases involving Credit Hire, Fraud, Low Velocity Impact and Fundamental Dishonesty. His practice also covers: General RTA Matters Occupiers’ Liability Public Liability Employers’ Liability In addition to oral advocacy, Gabriel frequently advises on liability and quantum and is regularly instructed to draft pleadings and statements of case. His approach to both his advocacy and written work is diligent, passionate and meticulous. Public and Regulatory Gabriel enjoys a varied Regulatory practice and most frequently presents and defends in cases across a range of professional disciplinary settings. Gabriel has extensive experience of proceedings before the NMC and has represented registrants in a range of complex cases, including those involving alleged abuse of patients. He also regularly appears as a Case Presenter for the NMC across a range of Interim and Substantive Hearings. Gabriel also has a wealth of experience in matters before the Farriers Registration Council in complex and lengthy cases, and also appears in matters before: The General Dental Council The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants The United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy. Additionally, Gabriel regularly appears in Regulatory Criminal matters relating to Environmental Protection Act Claims, Food Safety and Hygiene Regulations, Trading Standards Prosecutions and Prohibition Orders, as well as a range of other matters brought by and against Local Authorities. Gabriel is also currently seconded to Blake Morgan LLP as a Case Manager in the investigation and preparation of cases for the NMC and HCPC. Gabriel has a busy Public Law practice and has been instructed as Junior Counsel for Ofsted in the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse, over the past three years. He was actively involved in the Inquiry’s investigations into The Roman Catholic Church and Special and Residential Schools. Gabriel is regularly instructed by the Police and numerous Local Authorities on matters including: Domestic Violence Protection Orders Public Law Education and School Attendance Order Breaches Injunction Breaches Applications arising from Anti-Social Behaviour Orders; and Proceeds of Crime Gabriel also has experience in Public Law Insolvency matters, having previously worked as in-house counsel at the Insolvency Service and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. During this time, Gabriel also had extensive experience of Proceeds of Crime and Confiscation proceedings.

Gavin Hamilton

Overview Gavin Hamilton brings his many years of experience of practice as a barrister and a sharp and critical focus to the analysis of legal problems within his areas of specialisation. For his instructing solicitors, Gavin aims to provide an efficient and responsive service and to turn around work speedily, where circumstances require it and he has the capacity to commit to doing so. For the lay client, Gavin always tries to see the client’s perspective on their particular problem, to explain legal issues clearly and to give realistic advice as to how best to resolve matters. He also accepts instructions on a direct access basis. Gavin principally practises from London, but he is always willing to travel to our five other centres or to clients for conferences. He undertakes work in any part of the country. Gavin was head of the Property and Estates Group in chambers for several years and he now heads the Commercial Group. Gavin's practice covers a wide area of civil litigation. He specialises in the following areas: Professional negligence claims Property litigation Wills, probate and chancery disputes Commercial litigation & arbitration, including sale of goods, insurance and partnership disputes He is an experienced adviser and trial advocate. Gavin is an Accredited Mediation Advocate. Commercial Professional Liability Much of Gavin’s experience both at 4 New Square until 2004 and at 3PB since then has been in professional liability claims. His main practice area comprises claims involving solicitors, but he also regularly deals with claims involving accountants, barristers, insurance brokers, financial services advisers, surveyors, valuers, architects and engineers. Reported cases: Feakins-v-Burstow [2005] EWHC 1931 (QB), [2006] PNLR 6 – damages claim against solicitors for mishandling earlier civil litigation involving live sheep exports, leading unusually to the re-opening of the appeal in the original case. McGlinn-v-Waltham Contractors Ltd. [2007] EWHC 149 (TCC), 111 Con LR 1 – Gavin represented the architects in a claim brought by their client for damages for defective design and construction of a luxury house in Jersey. Kandola-v-Mirza Solicitors LLP [2015] EWHC 460 (Ch), [2015] PNLR 15 – claim against conveyancing solicitors for not protecting the client from the insolvency of the seller. Luffeorm Ltd.-v-Kitsons LLP [2015] EWHC B10 (QB), [2015] PNLR 30 – claim by purchaser of public house for damages against its solicitor arising out of the solicitor’s failure to advise client to seek a restrictive covenant from the seller. Hughmans-v-Dunhill [2015] EWHC 716 (Ch), [2017] EWCA Civ 97 – acting for solicitors on claim for fees and defending counterclaim for alleged negligence in the conduct of matrimonial proceedings. A successful application for summary judgment was overturned on appeal. Most of Gavin’s cases settle and usually at a mediation, at which he is frequently instructed to appear. Recent cases: Acting for claimant against his conveyancing solicitors on sale of property for their failure to protect him against fraud on part of buyer, as result of which much of the purchase price was returned to the buyer on a bogus undertaking Claim against solicitors arising out of failure to advise sellers of development land as to the terms of the overage agreement and negligent drafting of the clauses Acting for claimant against solicitors arising out of negligence in failing to advise in relation to partial surrender of commercial premises Claim against solicitors for failure to advise client on specific risk in settling claim arising out of lease of leisure business Several claims against solicitors for failing to advise joint purchasers as to the different methods of co-ownership of property resulting in loss to one of the owners on eventual sale Claim for damages against solicitors for failing to arrange for execution of will within the time scale of the instructions Claims by lenders against surveyors arising out of overvaluations of commercial and residential property Claims by property owners against surveyors arising from negligent surveys of residential property A claim by a commercial landlord against a surveyor acting under a rent review clause A claim against a surveyor acting as an expert witness in a boundary dispute Advising taxpayers on the recovery of tax paid unnecessarily, due to accountant's failure to advise Acting for taxpayers and accountants in claims to recover penalties and interest due to delays in preparation and filing of accounts and tax returns Acting for a company against its auditors for failing to identify thefts by an employee Acting for accountants resisting a claim by taxpayer for tax paid because no claim made to foreign domicile A claim against an architect for not providing proper advice about the absence of planning permission Acting for an engineer who advised on piling works for a domestic project Acting for an architect in the successful defence of a claim by developer concerning the restoration of a mediaeval timber-framed building Acting for architects on claims brought by employers arising out of extensions to domestic and commercial premises Defending an engineer in complex multi-party litigation about a landfill site Defending ground investigation contractors on a claim by the developer for loss and expense arising out of delays to housing development. Trading and business finance Sale of goods and services Gavin regularly advises businesses and consumers on contractual disputes concerning the sale and supply of goods and services. These include disputes about contractual interpretation and exclusion and indemnity clauses. Guarantees, indemnities and bonds Gavin was instructed for the defendant in Close Brothers Ltd.-v-Ridsdale [2012] EWHC 3090 (QB), [2012] All ER (D) 156 in claim arising out of a guarantee given in connection with a property development. Insurance Gavin has acted in fire claims against insurers, professional negligence claims against insurance brokers and has advised on policy and coverage points concerning non-disclosure and breach of warranty, particularly for professional liability policies and legal expenses insurance policies. He acted for the insurers in Pine-v-DAS Legal Expenses Insurance Co. Ltd.-v-Pine [2011] EWHC 658 (QB), [2012] Lloyd’s Rep IR 346. Partnership and business entities Gavin advises on various types of disputes for partnerships including farmers, solicitors, doctors, dentists and orthodontists. Reported cases include: Travelnet & Tours Ltd.-v-Patel [2012] EWHC 1438 (QB) - where Gavin acted for a defendant who had set up a company with a similar name to the claimant. Kyaw-v-Claasen [2015] EWHC 3337 (Ch) in which he was instructed in a dispute about an expenses-sharing agreement between dentists and successfully resisted an application for an injunction compelling the defendant to join in an application for a new lease of the surgery from which the parties operated. Property and Estates Gavin's property work covers many aspects of the law of real property, including: Conveyancing Land registration Overage agreements Adverse possession Mortgages Co-owners’ disputes Commercial and residential landlord and tenant disputes Boundaries Easements Restrictive covenants Rights of way Trespass and nuisance Party wall disputes. Reported cases include: Rehman-v-Benfield [2006] EWCA Civ 1392, [2007] 2 P & CR 317 – successful appeal by freeholder against judgment against him in his absence based on prescription Ijacic-v-Game Developments Ltd. (2009) (Land Registry Adjudicator) – successfully resisted claim by lender to a charge obtained by an imposter owner following identity theft on death of registered proprietor Gordon-v-Elizabeth Court (Bournemouth) Ltd. [2012] EWHC 1333 (QB) – dispute about construction of lease in relation to parking arrangements in underground car park at block of flats Chancery work covers principally: · Wills and probate · Inheritance Act claims Wills and Probate Gavin regularly advises on disputes concerning wills, including issues relating to their validity and due execution and the interpretation and effect of wills, the administration of estates and claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975. Recent cases: A dispute within a farming family as to where the testator’s share of the farm should go, giving rise to issues of testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval and proprietary estoppel Claims by estranged children against the estates of their parents under the 1975 Act Disputes between siblings as to proper administration of the estate of their parents Many cases involving claims to an interest in family property arising under proprietary estoppel and/or constructive trust

Gemma Ralph

Overview Gemma enjoys a varied civil practice, spanning Clinical Negligence, Personal Injury, Public and Regulatory and Commercial law. She has a busy advocacy and advisory practice, representing Claimants and Defendants. Before coming to the Bar, Gemma spent ten years as a British Diplomat, serving both overseas and as the Legal Researcher in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). Gemma also spent two years working as the Business Manager to the CEO of Coutts Bank. Given her background, Gemma has a particular interest in claims with an international dimension and is happy to travel on instruction. Gemma speaks Spanish. Clinical Negligence Gemma acts for Claimants and Defendants. Examples of recent cases include: W v a University Health Board and an NHS Trust: P v a Private Health Provider – Advised Claimant on expert evidence and quantum in relation to a claim for negligent arthroscopy leading to damage to the popliteal artery with long term risk of amputation. C v a GP and an NHS Trust: F v an NHS Trust - Advised Claimant on expert evidence and quantum in relation to a claim for negligent gynaecological surgery leading to artery damage and significant psychological injury. H v a GP and an NHS Trust - Advised Claimant in relation to a claim for negligent treatment leading to a deep abscess and infection in spine. Advised on evidence, quantum, drafted schedule including pension claim. H v an NHS Trust - Advised family in relation to a claim where Deceased who had a brain tumour suffered acute hydrocephalus and a mid-line shift following dislodgment of an external ventricular drain (EVD). V v GPs - Advised Claimant and drafted Particulars of Claim in relation to a claim for negligent treatment of an above the knee amputation resulting in inability to use prosthetics and inability to work. W v a University Health Board and an NHS Trust - Advised Claimant in relation to a claim for negligent delay in revascularisation, leading to an above the knee amputation. S v an NHS Trust - Advised family in relation to a claim where the Deceased sustained urological damage and a small bowel injury whilst undergoing a bilateral salpingo-ooperectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy and developed post-operative sepsis. C v a GP and an NHS Trust - Advised Claimant on merits, expert evidence and limitation in relation to a claim for complications following insertion of tension free vaginal tape (TVT). D v an NHS Trust - Advised Claimant on quantum and tactics in relation to a claim for infertility and fertility treatment, including in vitro fertilisation (IVF) following delay in diagnosis of a sexually transmitted infection (STI). V v an NHS Trust - Advised Claimant following mistaken debridement of tendon requiring reconstruction sacrificing two hamstring tendons. B v an NHS Trust - Advised Claimant on merits and on expert evidence in relation to a claim for myocardial infarction following treatment. L&S v V - Advised Claimants on enforcement of judgments in international jurisdictions for negligent cosmetic surgery. Z v a Government Department - Advised Claimant on quantum for failure to diagnose an orbital tumour to the eye requiring unnecessary surgery and resulting in ptosis. D v a Local Health Board - Advised Defendant on expert evidence in relation to a claim by a prisoner for psychological and physical injury for alleged delay in treatment, failure to carry out medication review and failure to prescribe medication. S v a Local Health Board - Advised Defendant on liability, merits, quantum and offers and drafted the Letter of Response in relation to a claim for failure to order an MRI scan where Claimant alleged they would not have undergone a knee arthroscopy had an MRI been ordered and were not advised of options (consent). P v an NHS Trust - Advised Claimant on liability, merits and further questions to an Expert in relation to a claim for the erroneous penetration of screws into the elbow joint and damage to the median nerve during an operation. S-W v a University Health Board - Advised Defendant on liability, merits, quantum and offers and drafted the Letter of Response in relation to a claim for failure to appreciate aberrant biliary anatomy during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy and incorrect treatment as a result. D v a University Health Board - Advised Defendant on liability, merits and drafted the Letter of Response and further questions to an Expert in relation to a claim for failure to diagnose and treat retinal vein occlusion. W v a University Health Board - Advised Defendant on merits and quantum of secondary victim claim for parents of neonate who died following negligent treatment. M v an NHS Trust - Advised family in relation to a claim where the Deceased developed and suffered worsening pressure sores in hospital. W v an NHS Trust - Advised Claimant in relation to a claim for negligent management of diuretic therapy. Advised on evidence and quantum and drafted Particulars of Claim. W v an NHS Trust - Advised widow on quantum and drafted schedule of damages in fatal accident claim, including accountancy (pension) evidence. N v an NHS Trust - Advised Claimant in relation to a claim for negligent knee surgery resulting in a knee replacement. Personal Injury Gemma has a busy personal injury practice. She advises and represents Claimants and Defendants in fast-track and multi-track claims and has experience of: Animals Act claims Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) claims and CICA appeals Employers’ liability Fatal accident claims Foreign jurisdiction claims Occupiers’ liability Product liability Public liability RTA litigation including all aspects of credit hire and fundamental dishonesty Trips and slips Athens Convention (cruise ship) claims Sexual offences and abuse claims Sports claims Gemma has a particular interest in international claims and has been instructed on both accidents abroad and accidents in the UK involving international parties. She advised the Secretary of State for Justice on an historical sexual abuse claim with an international dimension. Gemma is adept at handling sensitive procedural and factual matters. She recently advised the Secretary of State for Justice on a discrimination claim by a transgender prisoner. Gemma also appeared for a high street retailer defending a product liability claim by a Claimant who had a general civil restraint order issued by the Royal Courts of Justice to stop them from bringing certain cases to court. Examples of recent cases include: J v R - Acting as junior counsel, led by senior counsel, for Claimant who suffered serious spinal injury following fall from indoor play equipment at trampoline and adventure park. E v I - Advised Claimant who suffered unstable fracture to back resulting in chronic pain, kyphosis, foot drop and risk of syringomyelia. Drafted particulars of claim and schedule of damages and advised on quantum, including provisional damages. Advised on applicability of Athens Convention. G v C (Admiralty Court) - Advised on liability, quantum and offers and drafted particulars of claim for a Claimant with limited mobility who was knocked to the floor whilst using rollator on a cruise ship in Spanish waters. D v A - Represented Claimant who suffered severe physical and psychological injuries following RTA with international lorry. B v H - Advised family on quantum in fatal accident claim where the Deceased, a pedestrian, suffered life-changing injuries including amputation of leg and ultimately died of covid-19 after being struck by a speeding car. B v M - Represented Claimant who suffered permanent tinnitus, symptoms of deafness and PTSD following RTA. H v M - Represented Defendant including drafting Part 35 questions to an Expert about a diagnosis of tinnitus. F v M - Advised Claimant on quantum and offers in relation to a claim for polytrauma injuries sustained in a severe RTA. V v a Police Commissioner - Instructed by Claimant, a pedestrian, who was struck by a car following a collision between a car and a police car. Drafted particulars of claim and schedule of damages. S v MOJ - Represented Claimant, a female prisoner, in claim for unlawful use of force by a prison officer, leading to injuries requiring popliteal artery bypass and including foot drop with long term risk of amputation. B v a Government Department - Advised Claimant on quantum having been struck in eye by part of an airbag deployed during training at a fire station. W v Y and Y - Instructed by Claimant in civil claim following criminal proceedings for serious assault. L v a Tennis Club - Advised Claimant on liability and evidence following slip during tennis tournament. M v Lawn Tennis Association - Advised Claimant following slip during tennis tournament. Public and Regulatory Gemma has recently been instructed ‘off C Panel’ by GLD/MOD on judicial review claims, and, prior to this was a member of the Attorney General’s Junior Junior Panel. She has twice been DV vetted and is particularly interested in work with an international element. Gemma has worked with most government departments and maintains a strong network of contacts. Commercial Gemma has acted in a number of junior commercial matters including claims for breach of contract, rental arrears and possession and forfeiture of property. Examples of recent cases include: H v H and H (High Court) - Secured freezing order against family members where real risk of international dissipation of a Quistclose trust in the sum of £250,000.00 intended for the purchase of property. C v G - Represented Defendant in claim for breach of contract (loan agreement) and separate claim for breach of contract by Executor. Claim dismissed. FA Ltd v BR Ltd - Represented Claimant. Secured damages for breach of contract (equipment repair). RS Ltd v AS - Represented Claimant. Secured forfeiture order for non-payment of service charge. V v S - Represented Applicant (living overseas) in a case dealing with breach of undertakings relating to an injunction over land subject to an adverse possession application, subsequently replaced by an application to alter the register. Fraudulent insurance claims Gemma represents Claimants and Defendants at trials involving allegations of fraud and fundamental dishonesty. She is thorough and robust in cross examination. Examples of recent cases include: M v L - Represented Claimant. Secured award for whiplash. Successfully defended against a finding of fundamental dishonesty, the pleading of which was based on social media intelligence of extreme sports during prognosis period. L v C - Represented Defendant. Secured finding of fundamental dishonesty and an enforceable costs order against a professional person. R v A - Represented Defendant. Successfully defended a £20,000.00 claim for tinnitus. C&C v K - Represented Defendant. Following trial, successfully applied to re-allocate multi-track case of multiple Claimants to the fast-track, significantly limiting costs.

Geraint Jones KC

Overview Geraint Jones KC has a thriving commercial/chancery practice. His expertise includes: Regulatory and professional negligence Commercial disputes General chancery work Dispute Resolution/Arbitration/Mediation Direct Access In Silk he has been leading counsel in multi-million pound litigation, successfully defending allegations of commercial fraud arising from the collapse of the Versailles Group. He has been involved in long-running group litigation involving leaseholders in disputes with their landlord; a case of factual and substantial legal complexity. As junior counsel, Geraint was longstanding "counsel of choice" for the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (Western region) and has extensive experience in professional negligence and disciplinary issues, especially relating to property conveyancing matters. Recently he has been leading counsel in a series of judicial review cases against HMRC, successfully challenging its use (or misuse) of its statutory powers. He has also become an acknowledged leader in Proceeds of Crime Act challenges based upon article 1, first Protocol ECHR, lately overturning the long established rule of the common law that a Receiver can always recover his costs from assets subject to the receivership. Geraint has extensive sports law experience and is an Arbitrator at the International Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland. Geraint also has extensive experience of human rights and discrimination issues associated with his work in the Immigration Appeals Tribunal and The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. Commercial Geraint Jones KC is a leading Silk and specialist commercial law barrister with an emphasis on professional negligence, commercial litigation and fraud. He enjoys a formidable reputation for his commercial litigation expertise and as a junior was the counsel of choice for the Solicitors Indemnity Fund. Geraint also sits as a part-time Judge in the First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber. Professional Negligence Geraint’s core area of practice is professional negligence claims with a particular expertise in claims arising from financial and property transactions against lawyers, conveyancers, surveyors and financial professionals such as accountants and auditors; financial advisers and insolvency practitioners. As junior counsel, Geraint was counsel of choice for the Solicitors Indemnity Fund. He has extensive experience of lender claims and has been involved in long-running group litigation involving leaseholders in disputes with their landlord; a case of factual and substantial legal complexity. Commercial Litigation Geraint is very experienced in handling commercial disputes including fraud, for institutional clients, large and small businesses and individuals. His particular experience extends to: – claims arising from loans, mortgages, charges and debentures – freezing orders, asset recovery and enforcement of judgments – fraud arising from the collapse of the Versailles Group. – fixed charge receiverships – insolvency, both individual and corporate, especially transaction avoidance He also has experience of contentious and non-contentious company law matters, including minority shareholder claims and issues arising from articles of association and shareholder agreements. Clients include the likes of Sony UK, Texaco, Associated British Ports and AXA. He has also acted for numerous trade associations and large public sector organisations, including many lpocal authorities, such as The Environment Agency, DEFRA and Land Authority for Wales. Recent cases include: Elbrook Cash & Carry Ltd v H. M. R. C. [2017] UKUT 181 (TCC) County Leasing Management Ltd v Hawkes [2016] BCC 102 Romasave (Property Services) Ltd v HMRC [2015] STC 1 Brendan Barnes (B.D.O.) v Eastenders plc v C.P.S. [2014] UKSC 26 Brendan Barnes (B.D.O.) v Eastenders plc v C.P.S. [2013] 1 WLR 1494 Eastenders plc v H.M.R.C. [2012] 1 WLR 1494 (statutory construction CEMA’79) Eastenders Cash & Carry Ltd v H.M.R.C. (2011) UKFTT 25 (TC) R v H.M.R.C. ex parte Eastenders Cash & Carry Ltd (2011) 1 WLR 488 Goldberg v Foster Squires [2010] EWHC 450 - partners liable for fraud of a partner Carter v Cole (2009) 33 E.G. 66 (derogation from grant) Greening & Sykes Ltd v Nelson & Hanley The Times 22/1/08 (status of intervening bare trustee) Nelson v Clearsprings Management Ltd (2007) 1 WLR 962 Awoyomi v Radford (2007) EWHC 1671 (retrospectivity of Hall v Simons) HSS Hire Services PLC v BMB Builders Merchants Ltd (2005) EWCA Civ 627 (costs to be reserved until damages assessed where there was a split trial and a payment in had been made) Clowes Developments Ltd v Walters (2005) 17 EG 123 (adverse possession) Mercantile & Credit plc v Marks (2005) Ch 81, (2004) 3 WLR 489 (sub-charges) Richardson v Howie (2004) EWCA Civ 1127 (aggravated damages for assault abolished) Alpha Lettings Ltd v Neptune Research & Development Inc (2003) EWCA Civ 704 (period of notice to terminate an exclusive distributorship agreement) White v Chubb (2002) 1 P&CR Digest 22 UCB v Williams (2002) 2 P&CR Digest 33 (C/A : BCCI v Aboody not followed on causation in actual undue influence cases) Havenledge v Graeme John & Ptnrs (2001) PNLR Ford v GKR Construction (2000) 1 WLR 1097 Public and Regulatory Recently, Geraint has been leading counsel in a series of judicial review cases against HMRC, successfully challenging its use (or misuse) of its statutory powers. He has also become an acknowledged leader in Proceeds of Crime Act challenges based upon article 1, first Protocol ECHR, lately overturning the long established rule of the common law that a Receiver can always recover his costs from assets subject to the receivership. Geraint also has extensive experience of human rights and discrimination issues associated with his work in the Immigration Appeals Tribunal and The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. Recent cases: Elbrook Cash & Carry Ltd v H. M. R. C. [2017] UKUT 181 (TCC) County Leasing Management Ltd v Hawkes [2016] BCC 102 Romasave (Property Services) Ltd v HMRC [2015] STC 1 Brendan Barnes (B.D.O.) v Eastenders plc v C.P.S. [2014] UKSC 26 Brendan Barnes (B.D.O.) v Eastenders plc v C.P.S. [2013] 1 WLR 1494 Eastenders plc v H.M.R.C. [2012] 1 WLR 1494 (statutory construction CEMA’79) Eastenders Cash & Carry Ltd v H.M.R.C. (2011) UKFTT 25 (TC). R v H.M.R.C. ex parte Eastenders Cash & Carry Ltd (2011) 1 WLR 488 Goldberg v Foster Squires [2010] EWHC 450 - partners liable for fraud of a partner. Carter v Cole (2009) 33 E.G. 66 (derogation from grant) Greening & Sykes Ltd v Nelson & Hanley The Times 22/1/08 (status of intervening bare trustee) Nelson v Clearsprings Management Ltd (2007) 1 WLR 962 Awoyomi v Radford (2007) EWHC 1671 (retrospectivity of Hall v Simons) HSS Hire Services PLC v BMB Builders Merchants Ltd (2005) EWCA Civ 627 (costs to be reserved until damages assessed where there was a split trial and a payment in had been made) Clowes Developments Ltd v Walters (2005) 17 EG 123 (adverse possession) Mercantile & Credit plc v Marks (2005) Ch 81, (2004) 3 WLR 489 (sub-charges) Richardson v Howie (2004) EWCA Civ 1127 (aggravated damages for assault abolished) Alpha Lettings Ltd v Neptune Research & Development Inc (2003) EWCA Civ 704 (period of notice to terminate an exclusive distributorship agreement) White v Chubb (2002) 1 P&CR Digest 22 UCB v Williams (2002) 2 P&CR Digest 33 (C/A : BCCI v Aboody not followed on causation in actual undue influence cases) Havenledge v Graeme John & Ptnrs (2001) PNLR Ford v GKR Construction (2000) 1 WLR 1097. Experience: Formerly junior counsel of choice for Solicitors’ Indemnity Fund for South Wales area (real property/conveyancing matters) Advisory and advocacy work for The Environment Agency & Dept the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Advisory and advocacy work for Sony (U.K.) Ltd; Texaco plc; Associated British Ports; Templar Properties Ltd; Eagle Star (Axa); Land Authority for Wales Advisory and advocacy work for numerous local authorities Litigation relating to all aspects of real property disputes, mortgages and trusts Advising upon & drafting standard contractual conditions for trade association members Leading counsel in multi-million pound commercial fraud case arising from the collapse of the Versailles Group. Property and Estates Geraint Jones KC has pursued a substantial chancery, commercial and professional negligence practice over many years and has specialised in these fields for some 25 years or more. In Silk he has been involved in long-running group litigation involving leaseholders in disputes with their landlord; a case of factual and substantial legal complexity. As junior counsel, Geraint was counsel of choice for the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (western region) and has extensive experience in professional negligence issues, especially relating to property conveyancing matters. Recent cases: Elbrook Cash & Carry Ltd v H. M. R. C. [2017] UKUT 181 (TCC) County Leasing Management Ltd v Hawkes [2016] BCC 102 Romasave (Property Services) Ltd v HMRC [2015] STC 1 Brendan Barnes (B.D.O.) v Eastenders plc v C.P.S. [2014] UKSC 26 Brendan Barnes (B.D.O.) v Eastenders plc v C.P.S. [2013] 1 WLR 1494 Eastenders plc v H.M.R.C. [2012] 1 WLR 1494 (statutory construction CEMA’79) Eastenders Cash & Carry Ltd v H.M.R.C. (2011) UKFTT 25 (TC) R v H.M.R.C. ex parte Eastenders Cash & Carry Ltd (2011) 1 WLR 488 Goldberg v Foster Squires [2010] EWHC 450 - partners liable for fraud of a partner Carter v Cole (2009) 33 E.G. 66 (derogation from grant) Greening & Sykes Ltd v Nelson & Hanley The Times 22/1/08 (status of intervening bare trustee) Nelson v Clearsprings Management Ltd (2007) 1 WLR 962 Awoyomi v Radford (2007) EWHC 1671 (retrospectivity of Hall v Simons) HSS Hire Services PLC v BMB Builders Merchants Ltd (2005) EWCA Civ 627 (costs to be reserved until damages assessed where there was a split trial and a payment in had been made) Clowes Developments Ltd v Walters (2005) 17 EG 123 (adverse possession) Mercantile & Credit plc v Marks (2005) Ch 81, (2004) 3 WLR 489 (sub-charges) Richardson v Howie (2004) EWCA Civ 1127 (aggravated damages for assault abolished) Alpha Lettings Ltd v Neptune Research & Development Inc (2003) EWCA Civ 704 (period of notice to terminate an exclusive distributorship agreement) White v Chubb (2002) 1 P&CR Digest 22 UCB v Williams (2002) 2 P&CR Digest 33 (C/A : BCCI v Aboody not followed on causation in actual undue influence cases) Havenledge v Graeme John & Ptnrs (2001) PNLR Ford v GKR Construction (2000) 1 WLR 1097. Experience: Formerly junior counsel of choice for Solicitors’ Indemnity Fund for South Wales area (real property/conveyancing matters) Advisory and advocacy work for The Environment Agency & Dept the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Advisory and advocacy work for Sony (U.K.) Ltd; Texaco plc; Associated British Ports; Templar Properties Ltd ; Eagle Star (Axa) ; Land Authority for Wales Advisory and advocacy work for numerous local authorities Litigation relating to all aspects of real property disputes, mortgages and trusts Advising upon & drafting standard contractual conditions for trade association members Leading counsel in multi-million pound commercial fraud case arising from the collapse of the Versailles Group. Sports Geraint has extensive sports law experience and is an Arbitrator at the International Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland.

Gillian Campbell

Overview Gillian Campbell is a family law specialist. Her practice encompasses family finance (financial remedies, TLATA claims and Schedule 1 applications) and private children work. She prides herself on offering both a practical and professional service to all clients. Gillian lives in London and is married with two young daughters. Any free time is spent practising yoga, running and cooking. Family Finance/Property team Gillian is an experienced family law barrister who specialises in financial remedies work. She has significant experience in matrimonial finance involving property disputes, pensions and business assets. Gillian provides advice and representation in financial remedies matters at all stages of the proceedings. Gillian is experienced in dealing with concealment, inherited wealth, non-matrimonial property, applications for variation and enforcement and cases involving intervenors. Gillian accepts instructions in all areas of family finance including financial remedy proceedings, maintenance, Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 and TLATA 1996 cases. Private Remote FDR Hearings Gillian is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here. Private Law team Gillian undertakes all private law proceedings including s.8 proceedings and leave to remove from the jurisdiction. Her experience includes: The full range of Children Act applications including child arrangement orders, shared residence orders and parental responsibility orders Allegations of sexual and physical abuse of children Alcohol and drug abuse by parents Parents with learning difficulties and psychiatric problems Domestic violence in both Children Act and injunction proceedings Applications for non-molestation orders and occupations orders

Harriet Lavis

Overview Family barrister Harriet Lavis joined 3PB (3 Paper Buildings) in October 2022 from a specialist family law chambers in the Southeast of England, where she has developed a broad family law practice focusing on private law children, family financial disputes and domestic violence and injunctions. She read Law at Durham University, winning the Sidley Austin Equity Prize. Before transferring to the Bar, Harriet worked as a paralegal for Bevan Brittan, where she was seconded full-time to the Department of Health. In her spare time Harriet enjoys yoga and singing. Family Private Law Children Harriet Lavis already has a strong family law practice focused on private law children, family finance disputes, domestic violence and injunctions. She acts regularly for parents, other family members and Guardians in private law children disputes. She has particular experience with international relocation cases and has recently given a talk on the topic. She is regularly instructed on cases involving serious allegations of abuse, intractable hostility to contact, and matters in relation to jurisdiction. Many cases have involved disputes over a child’s residence. Harriet has been successful both in obtaining a transfer of residence in her client’s favour and successfully resisting such applications. Harriet Lavis has represented a wide variety of clients at all stages of private law children disputes. She acts regularly for parents, other family members and Guardians. She has recently had experience of cases involving international relocation, serious allegations of abuse, intractable hostility to contact, and matters in relation to jurisdiction. Many cases have involved disputes over a child’s residence. Harriet has been successful both in obtaining a transfer of residence in her client’s favour and successfully resisting such applications. Family Finance Her strong practice in financial remedy disputes has seen her work at all stages of disputes as well as taking cases from first appointment to final hearing. Harriet is mindful of the potential advantages to her clients in settling a case and gives clear advice on her client’s prospects where possible. Recent cases have involved international property and assets, short marriages, third party interests, and allegations of non-disclosure. She also has considerable experience in cases involving domestic violence, representing clients from initial emergency applications through to final hearings. She has represented both applicants and respondents to domestic violence allegations. She has successfully obtained occupation orders for clients. Domestic Violence and Injunctions Harriet has considerable experience in cases involving domestic violence, representing clients from initial emergency applications through to final hearings. She has represented both applicants and respondents to domestic violence allegations and is able to apply this broad range of experience to give informed advice to her clients. She has successfully obtained occupation orders for clients.

Henrietta Hughes

Overview Henrietta’s practice is focused on Personal Injury, Clinical Negligence and RTA non PI matters including Credit Hire. She represents both claimants and defendants. She has been instructed in multi-track and fast track claims. Henrietta frequently appears in court in a range of hearings including trials, CCMCs, applications, disposals and approval hearings. This has enabled her to hone her advocacy skills and expose her to the varying judicial attitudes across the country whilst managing an expanding advisory practice (in writing and in conference). She is also regularly instructed in cases in which alleged fundamental dishonesty and fraud are features. Henrietta provides a comprehensive and prompt performance ensuring solicitors and lay clients receive an all round exemplary level of service. She is noted for her thorough and client focused approach to cases. In addition, she has the ability to balance sensitivity with the need to be robust in certain circumstances. Outside of her practice, Henrietta is currently learning Hindi. She also enjoys running (having completed the London marathon for the Spinal Injuries Association and half marathons, including for the Royal British Legion). Henrietta has more recently been involved in organising 3PB’s virtual quizzes in aid of the Child Brain Injury Trust and chambers’ participation in the London Legal Walks 19/20 to raise support for free legal advice charities in London and the South East. Seminars/Webinars Henrietta’s most recent presentation was for MBL on the RTA Stage 3 - Practical Issues & Pitfalls Explained Personal Injury Henrietta acts for both claimants and defendants in Personal Injury matters. She appears in court on a daily basis. She has been instructed to attend an array of hearings (non-exhaustive list): CMC CCMC Application for relief from sanctions Application to rely on expert evidence Application for strike out or summary judgment Application to set aside default judgment Stage 3 hearing Infant and/or Protected Party approval hearing Disposal Trial (liability, causation and/or quantum) In relation to trials, Henrietta largely appears in cases involving road traffic accidents. However, she is also instructed in cases concerning: Employers’ liability Occupiers’ liability Public liability Accidents abroad Henrietta has successfully argued for and defended findings of fundamental dishonesty. When acting for defendants in such cases she undertakes robust and detailed cross-examination of claimants, with her attention to detail proving extremely useful. In addition to oral advocacy, Henrietta can draft skeletons, pleadings and opinions (liability and/or quantum). Prior to moving to the self-employed Bar Henrietta was in house counsel at a leading personal injury firm, which specialises in civil claims brought by serving and non-serving military personnel as well as claims brought under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS). Her cases of interest include drafting Particulars of Claim in a multi-track case where the claimant suffers Non Freezing Cold Injuries, and appearing at an AFCS appeal securing an increased lump sum thereby triggering a guaranteed income payment. Furthermore, Henrietta's previous experience includes being legal assistant to a personal injury QC for over 18 months (including during the trial of Nadarajah v Sotnick [2013] EWHC 3389 (QB)) and undertaking paralegal work for other senior members of the Bar who also specialise in the area. Credit Hire A significant degree of Henrietta's practice is Credit Hire. Henrietta has been instructed in many credit hire hearings for both claimants and defendants, regularly appearing in cases involving the UK's largest car hire companies and insurers. She has the advantage of being able to help anticipate the submissions her opponents are likely to make given she acts for both sides. She has substantial experience in addressing the common issues - enforceability, need, type, impecuniosity, duration and rate - and is very familiar with the key authorities in this area of law. Henrietta prides herself on her detailed approach. She is also able to advise on tactics and settlement in these cases. Clinical Negligence Henrietta accepts instructions in all aspects of Clinical Negligence work (on a Conditional Fee basis where appropriate) including: Delayed clinical diagnosis Ophthalmic negligence Negligent nursing care Dental negligence Cosmetic Negligence Recent instructions included drafting Particulars of Claim, conducting conference and advising in a cosmetic negligence claim concerning rhinoplasty. Settlement was secured.

Ian Edge

Overview Ian Edge is a specialist in most legal matters concerning Islamic/Shari’a law and the laws of the Middle East. He acts as advocate in matters of commercial and private international law relating to the Middle East or Islamic law and is considered one of the leading experts on the civil and commercial laws of the Middle East (including the application of Islamic law). His clients include governments, major corporations and banks as well as Royal and Ruling family members as well as the scions of the most well-known and leading families in the Middle East. Ian is the only non-UAE resident member of the DIFC Legislative Council which he has sat on since its inception. Ian was appointed to the International Committee of the Bar Council as the member with responsibility for the Middle East and Chairman of the IC’s Middle East Interest Group in which role he served for four years. Ian has written publications on commercial law with particular reference to Middle East and Islamic Law and has a good working knowledge of French and of written Arabic. Commercial Ian gives advice on Islamic and Middle East law to English or foreign clients, particularly in the fields of civil and commercial law, banking law (especially Islamic banking and finance issues) and estate planning (including Shari’a compliant trusts which he has helped to develop and other succession issues). He has acted as an expert witness on Islamic and Middle East laws in courts and tribunals throughout the world and his clients include UK and US governments and many of the governments, public authorities and major corporations of the Middle East with special reference to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Examples of work He recently advised Nissan in a major arbitration in Japan on the Saudi law of agency He advised Victor Dahdaleh in the bribery action brought against him by the SFO on Bahraini law which subsequently saw Mr Dahdaleh acquitted He advised on the creation of a Shari’a compliant investment fund for a high ranking Saudi investor He advised the SFO on Saudi Arabian law in the British Aerospace bribery case He advised the Foreign Office on Egyptian law in the case of Abu Hamza He advised the Candy brothers on Qatari law in the claim concerning the Chelsea barracks He advised the Kuwaiti Oil minister in the Gruppo Torras litigation He assisted in the drafting of the Islamic Finance legislation for Malaysian offshore island of Labuan He acted as the as the expert on Saudi Arabian law on behalf of Maan Al-Sanea in Saudi Arabia’s biggest insolvency in proceedings in New York, the Cayman Islands and London He acts regularly as counsel and arbitrator in international commercial arbitrations involving Middle East and foreign legal matters He was the main Counsel on behalf of the Angolan State Diamond Corporation in three related arbitrations in Lisbon, London and Rio de Janeiro that arose out of Angola’s termination of various diamond concessions with De Beers He acted in Stockholm as an arbitrator in a dispute concerning a major agency contract between a Yemeni company and a major Chinese multinational He acted in Paris as an arbitrator under the ICC rules concerning termination of a Syrian pharmaceutical contract with a global international He was appointed Chairman of an arbitration panel on an issue concerning the selling and exporting of Iraqi oil. Mediation Ian is an Accredited Mediator. Family Ian regularly advises Middle East clients on all aspects of private international law, Islamic law and Middle East law as regards family, inheritance and property matters. He has advised members of the Royal Families of Bahrain, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan as well as many of the wealthiest families in the Middle East on all manner of matrimonial and succession problems. He was the expert on Saudi law in the Supreme Court case of Re S He was the expert for the applicant on Saudi law in the case of Harb v King Fahd He was the only non-Saudi expert on Saudi inheritance and trust law in the case of Al-Hamrani which is the longest running case in Guernsey legal history He drafted a bilateral treaty on child abduction between Egypt and the UK (which was never used). Construction and engineering Civil Practitioner. Ian regularly advises on construction projects in the Middle East and where Middle East laws are involved. He advised and was advocate in an ICC arbitration in Paris involving the Great Man Made River project in Libya He has advised as expert on various major construction projects in Qatar: one involving the University and another Gas storage He has advised on oil pipeline disputes in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

James Davison

Overview James Davison specialises in construction, engineering and commercial matters as well as in the procurement and financial arrangements that fund and support projects. As experienced counsel he seeks to match a robustly commercial approach with the rigorous demands of document-heavy construction and commercial trials. James Davison has practical experience of leading disputes through adjudication, arbitration and mediation. Before joining 3PB, James worked in-house in the construction and engineering sector, working for two of the leading construction consultancy companies in the UK (Arup and Cyril Sweett) and in railway engineering projects and procurement (Jubilee Line Extension Project). He has worked on construction projects and disputes in the Netherlands, Denmark, Malta, Italy and the USA as well as numerous high profile UK projects. He led the team that advised the Treasury’s Office for Government Commerce on how JCT 2005, NEC3 and PPC 2000 standard form contracts measured against the Government’s Achieving Excellence in Construction Agenda. James' guide to the JCT’s 2005 Standard Form Construction Contracts was published by the RICS and he edited a chapter of Frances Forward’s book “NEC Contracts Compared and Contrasted” published by Thomas Telford. James’ experience as company secretary of the Fibrowatt Group (one of the UK’s foremost renewable energy businesses at that time) gave him experience of working for an innovative, entrepreneurial company that operated in a highly regulated market. He still advises on non-contentious/drafting matters, acts as adjudicator and is an accredited mediator. Commercial James Davison specialises in contract and commercial disputes, with a particular expertise with large construction and engineering matters and the commercial arrangements that fund and support them. He has gained from more than 10 years experience working in-house in the construction and engineering sector, working for two of the leading construction consultancy companies in the UK. As experienced counsel he seeks to match a robustly commercial approach with the rigorous demands of document-heavy commercial and construction disputes. James' guide to the JCT’s 2005 Standard Form Construction Contracts was published by the RICS. He led the team that advised the Treasury’s Office for Government Commerce on how JCT 2005, NEC3 and PPC 2000 standard form contracts measured against the Government’s Achieving Excellence in Construction Agenda. James’ experience as company secretary of one of the UK’s foremost renewable energy businesses gave him experience of working for an innovative, entrepreneurial company that operated in a highly regulated market. He has worked on construction projects in the Netherlands, Denmark, Malta, and the USA as well as numerous high profile UK projects. James has practical experience of managing contentious matters through adjudication and mediation and advising upon the conduct of regulated procurement. He still advises on non-contentious/drafting matters. James is an accredited mediator. Energy & Utilities James is regularly instructed by a number of utility (gas and electricity) companies in their actions involving commercial customers (unpaid debts) particularly including instances where injunctive relief is sought by debtors at short notice. Prior to practising at the Bar, James gained practical first-hand experience as an in-house lawyer and company secretary of one of the UK’s foremost renewable energy businesses (the Fibrowatt Group) which at the time operated three power stations and was developing several projects in the EU and USA. He subsequently worked for two leading project management and engineering consultancies (Cyril Sweett and Arup). During his time in-house he: Advised the boards of directors on the legal and regulatory considerations of several companies operating electricity generating power stations Negotiated and drafted wholesale electricity supply contracts with several utilities (including negotiation of commercial heads of terms, prices and pricing structures) Took part in lobbying and consultation in respect of the impact of legislative change on small and renewable electricity generators during a period of major regulatory transition Drafted submissions in the first (and successful) rounds of applications to OFGEM for certification of ROCs and CCL Certificates Advised on transactions with the electricity markets in Europe (i.e. “export” of electricity through the interconnector of certified renewable energy) Advised potential purchasers of electrical infrastructure as to impact of procurement regulation Building on that experience, his recent instructions as counsel include: Advising residents as to how to bring about the transfer of a local CHP plant to their ownership or control despite ongoing resistance from the property developer. This ultimately involved issuing injunctive proceedings Advising a sub-contractor on a multiparty dispute concerning numerous aspects of the construction of a large power station in the UK with respect to claims and cross claims for and against the Sub-Sub Contractor and similarly with respect to the Main Contractor Construction and Engineering fund and support them. James frequently advises builders, developers and specialist sub contractors with disputes on NEC contracts, PPC 2000 and a whole host of various JCT contracts. He has built up real experience from many of adjudications and familiarity with ADR in construction and commercial disputes. As counsel he seeks to match a robustly commercial approach with the rigorous demands of document-heavy commercial and construction disputes. Key highlights Successfully resisting c.£10M Adjudication claim against a Housing Association by its framework “partner” who provided planned and reactive maintenance for tens of thousands of properties. The action progressed with great intensity from a set of payment claims across two contracts to concurrent adjudication of the issues and, ultimately, after a successful defence, a clean break settlement Counsel for a Steelwork Contractor in a 4 day Arbitration hearing with its Sub Contractor Employer Trial Counsel for Main Contractor in a 6 day Multi Track Trial in Nottingham County Court issues included: formation of contract, scope of works, basis of price, final account Trial Counsel for Employer in 4 day Multi Track Trial in Nottingham County Court issues included standard of works and final account - no common ground on an extensive Scott Schedule. Junior Counsel to Mr David Berkley QC in a High Court Case (Chancery Division) concerning the financing of a renewable power plant (notable for early use of the disclosure protocol) Advising unpaid environmental services Sub Contractor on HS2 to achieve a commercial outcome without litigating Negotiation and drafting of contracts for prototyping and development of products for HS2 Advising Sub Contractor working on one of London’s largest and high profile property and infrastructure developments Trial Counsel for Builders Merchant in a Multi Track Trial in Central London County Court over the execution of personal guarantees. Adjudication Summary Judgment applications examples include: Successfully enforcing an adjudicator’s decision in the High Court (TCC) against a local authority who claimed that the decision had been reached by an adjudicator acting under the wrong rules (Sprunt v. Camden [2011] EWHC 3191) before Mr Justice Akenhead QC Enforcing an adjudciators decision following summary Judgment with an Order for Sale, stayed on terms before Mr Justice Edwards Stuart QC Advising an M&E Sub-Contractor working on a large power station with respect to high value claims both up and down the supply chain Assisting an Academy operating from premises constructed as part of the “Building Schools For The Future” initiative to hold its partners to account for the rectification of major and minor defects. That meant working with the Local Authority and Contractor to break deadlock and achieve a commercial outcome Advising a Housing Association on the conclusion of its framework agreements following extensive change and dispute during the course of the framework Multi Track trial in Bristol County Court successfully securing judgment for an unpaid Sub-Contractor Steering a developer client through the successful conclusion of a multi-phase/multi-unit resi scheme avoiding both adjudication and litigation despite a near total lack of traction with the procedures in the JCT contract used Representing a specialist M&E main contractor in adjudication proceedings brought by its specialist M&E Sub-Contractor concerning a very high profile retail development in the City of London Representing a specialist fire stopping contractor in an action brought by its Sub-Contractor concerning works on a new tower in the City of London. The matter was successfully resolved through mediation Junior in a matter with serial adjudications between a government agency based in Wales and its contractor who were attempting (but entirely failing) to use an NEC3 contract but left with an unresolved final account Advising a Developer/Contractor based in Essex in a series of disputes with its regular sub contractor across a series of new build projects in several jurisdictions. The case was successfully settled at mediation Advising a Herefordshire farmer in a case of contaminated feed caused by defective plant. Difficulties in establishing causation were overcome with an extensive Scott Schedule making reference to the expert vet’s evidence. The matter was successfully resolved in mediation Frequent appearances representing clients chasing (or contesting) payment on commercial contracts and sale of goods/supply of services agreements Frequently acted on matters where High Court Enforcement Officers conduct of enforcement has been challenged and have appeared in the High Court and County Court for officers in such cases and on interpleader matters. Before entering private practice James worked in-house in the construction and engineering sector for two of the leading construction consultancy companies in the UK. Whilst an associate at Arup he led the team that advised the Office for Government Commerce on how JCT 2005, NEC3 and PPC 2000 standard form contracts measured against the Government’s Achieving Excellence in Construction Agenda. His experience as company secretary of one of the UK’s foremost renewable energy businesses gave him experience of working for an innovative, entrepreneurial company that operated in a highly regulated market. He has worked on construction projects and developments around the world as well as numerous high profile UK projects. He is a member of the RICS’ ISURV editorial board for construction. Whilst an Associate Director at Cyril Sweett he wrote “JCT 2005: What’s New” published by RICS with subsequent editions for the 2011 contracts being published online by the RICS. He contributed a chapter to the ICE’s 2015 publication“NEC3 Compared and Contrasted” focusing on NEC consultancy contracts. James is an accredited mediator and adjudicator and is a member of the Tecbar Adjudication Panel. Mediation James is an Accredited Mediator (London School of Psychotherapy and Counselling).

James Trumble

Overview Prior to joining the Bar James was a senior solicitor at Ince & Co, where he undertook defendant PI work in the maritime and aviation sectors. Most of his work arose from maritime and offshore accidents, including catastrophic and fatal accidents occurring on board vessels and offshore installations. He also had an extensive practice dealing with the conflict of laws. James has contributed to Griggs,Williams and Farr on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Accidents. In addition, James has handled claims for the aviation market, which often involved multiple loss of life. He frequently has had to deal with issues of jurisdiction and conflict of laws. James also practises general civil law, including contractual disputes, licensing and housing. He has conducted a number of inquests as a result of his personal injury and police law practise. He frequently undertakes credit hire work, and has sat as a mediator on a vast variety of disputes. James is a qualified Direct Public Access barrister. Personal Injury James has practiced in personal injury since 1997. His experience includes serious road traffic accidents (often acting for motor manufacturers), employers' and occupiers' liability and fatal accident claims. He predominantly (but not exclusively) acts for defendants. He has been involved in advising on criminal prosecutions arising from accidents and has developed a particular expertise in defending fraudulent and exaggerated claims, particularly those arising from road traffic accidents, in which he advises from an early stage. He has extensive experience in counterclaiming in the tort of deceit, and has successfully secured damages for insurer clients as a result. He frequently adopts tactics designed to defeat fraudulent claims without the need to go to a final trial. James has also been extensively involved in litigation arising from maritime and offshore accidents, including catastrophic and fatal accidents occurring on board vessels and offshore installations. In addition, he has handled claims for the aviation market, which often involved multiple loss of life. He frequently has had to deal with issues of jurisdiction and conflict of laws. James acts primarily for defendants, but does undertake a certain amount of CFA work. Inquests James has undertaken a large number of inquests on behalf of interested parties, families, local authorities and police forces. These include: Re Roger and Susan Goswell - representing Sussex Police in an inquest where Mrs Goswell reported her husband's intention to kill her and then himself, before very shortly doing so; Re Mr Weston - representing the police in an inquest before a jury where a teenager chased by police ran over a wall with a high drop on the other side, and died as a result; Re Jay Abatan - representing the police in an inquest where the deceased was killed in a fight outside a nightclub, amidst allegations of racism on the part of the aggressor and the police during the subsequent investigation; Re Richard Copithorne - representing Sussex Police in an inquest before a jury where a vulnerable man with schizophrenia committed suicide following a sustained period of financial abuse and harassment by a person purporting to be his carer. James can be instructed on a Direct Access basis. Clinical Negligence James has a wide clinical negligence practice, acting for both claimants and professionals. He is happy to accept instructions in the following clinical negligence specialisms (although not limited to): Misdiagnosis Delayed diagnosis Surgical negligence Failure to obtain informed consent Unnecessary or inappropriate treatment Public and regulatory Police Law James undertakes a wide range of civil work on behalf of the police and various Local Authorities, including Judicial Review, applications arising from anti-social behaviour, Closure Orders, Proceeds of Crime, and, under the old legislation, Sexual Offences Prevention Orders, Risk of Sexual Harm Orders and Foreign Travel Orders (having undertaken a significant number of these rare applications). He also defends the police against allegations of misconduct and undertakes disciplinary work. Since the commencement of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 James has secured the first injunction under the Act granted in Surrey and (separately) the first injunction to be applied for by Surrey Police. He has also been instructed in a number of closure orders and applications for protection from sexual harm and violence. James has provided extensive training in the new legislation to local authorities, housing providers and police forces. James can be instructed on a Direct Access basis. Mediation James is an Accredited Mediator.

Jane Foulser McFarlane

Overview Jane Foulser-McFarlane has returned to private practice at the Bar to specialise in personal injury and intellectual property, having just completed a PhD at Exeter University in Intellectual Property Law. The title of her thesis was ‘Copyright Damages Need to Have a Sufficiently Punitive Element to Successfully Deter Infringement.’ Jane has also been working for an intellectual property law firm based in South-East Asia as a Legal Editor and Intellectual Property Writer. Jane's work has included writing on behalf of the firm for prestigious journals, such as the Oxford University Press, Journal of Intellectual Law and Practice, as well as the American Bar Association, The World Trademark Review and the European Communities Trademark Association (ECTA). Jane will continue her freelance writing for the law firm. She has extensive experience in commenting on high profile cases brought by well known luxury brands and regularly analyses the impact of a successful outcome, not only on the brands themselves, but also in the context of the existing legal framework. Jane has been a working associate at 3PB since 2012. In intellectual property, she focuses mainly on copyright and passing off, as well as trade marks and has gained a good knowledge and understanding of trade mark law in China and has worked in Beijing. Jane had a substantial and wide-ranging personal injury practice, prior to doing her PhD in intellectual property law, which she is also now returning to, along with an intellectual property caseload. Her expertise in personal injury cases includes: Road Traffic Accidents including motorcycle accidents Professional Negligence Employers Liability Occupiers and Public Liability She is a regular contributor to New Law Journal, including writing a book review of William Patry's "How to Fix Copyright." Publications of note: God and the Stormtroopers – Assessing How Far Toys Can be Used for Role Play Without Breaching Copyright Virtual Reality? Online Infringement? No…It’s Infringement Online Privacy’s death knell? Interim injunctions Mediation in Intellectual Property Law Disputes – Is Low Cost Dispute Resolution the Way Forward, Following the Findings of The Hargreaves Report Bottom of The Class: What are the implications for Google’s online library? For Richer or Poorer – To what extent are intellectual property rights matrimonial assets? God & the Stormtroopers – Assessing how far toys can be used for role play without breaching copyright Piracy’s Death Sentence – Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement In the Witches Domain – Internet domain names Tarzan Yell Falls Flat – Sounds as Trademarks Jane has appeared on "Law in Action" on Radio 4 to debate the subject of "Remote Justice" alongside Lord Burnett. Personal Injury Jane Foulser McFarlane advises and represents both claimant and defendant clients on a broad range of issues including: Catastrophic injury Asbestosis/ industrial disease Employer’s liability Occupiers and public liability Road traffic claims including motorcycle accidents Highway claims Jane has represented a number of clients in personal injury actions arising out of hit-and-run incidents and is known for being an approachable and pragmatic advocate. Reported cases Aquilina v Aquilina [2004] EWCA 504 David Lewin v Stephen Harvey [2010] Lawtel AM0201691: Representing the Claimant, who was awarded £31,000 for the loss of taste and smell.

Jennifer Agyekum

Overview Jennifer has a well-established practice, successfully representing clients in the field of professional discipline and regulatory law. Focussing on defence, Jennifer has an excellent track record of positive outcomes in complex and sensitive cases. Jennifer routinely defends clients before professional bodies including the Nursing & Midwifery Council, General Dental Council, General Pharmaceutical Council, Health and Care Professions Council, Ofsted, and the Teaching Regulation Agency. Representation of professionals is both at first instance and on appeal to the Care Standards Tribunal and High Court. Jennifer’s practice includes representation in local level proceedings, CQC cases and Disclosure and Barring Service appeals; providing clients with continuity of representation in ancillary regulatory matters. Jennifer has extensive experience in education law and is instructed to provide advice and representation in higher education, schools and special educational needs cases. Prior to joining the Bar Jennifer worked as an advocate at a solicitors’ firm dealing with a range of education law cases (schools and higher education) and associated employment issues. She represented teachers, students and parents at both internal and tribunal proceedings. Jennifer also worked as a legal assistant to a senior barrister, assisting with his public / education law practice spanning work before university disciplinary panels, in the county court, High Court, Court of Appeal, and special educational needs work in the First-tier and Upper tribunals. Notable cases NMV v Caroline Wellington & Others NMC v Saidat Abbas Public and Regulatory Jennifer is a professional disciplinary and healthcare specialist. She regularly appears before the various disciplinary tribunals including the Nursing and Midwifery Council, General Dental Council, General Pharmaceutical Council, Health Care Professions Council and the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. As well as appearing in court Jennifer frequently delivers seminars, lectures and training within this specialist area. She has also taken part in stakeholder events and discussions in relation to proposed changes to the law in this area. Jennifer’s practice includes representing clients in the following areas: Misconduct and competence cases Health cases Registration appeals Restoration appeals Fraudulent/ incorrect entry appeals Substantive order reviews Interim order hearings Application hearings Inquests Disclosure & Barring Service Notable cases GDC v RY - Jennifer represented a dentist facing charges including dishonesty related to plagiarism in a course connected to his dentistry practice. After hearing persuasive submissions by Jennifer, the panel imposed a caution order. NMC v CW & Others - Jennifer represented one of six nurses in a high profile four-week hearing. In the years preceding the regulatory proceedings there had been an inquest and civil proceedings. This case involved the death of a patient after he had been admitted to a ward with what had been diagnosed as back pain. The nurse that Jennifer was representing faced five charges ranging from failing to check patient records and escalate his condition to inadequacies in the administration of medication. After hearing four weeks of evidence, Jennifer persuaded the panel to impose the least restrictive of sanctions solely based on public interest grounds. FM v NMC - Jennifer successfully represented a nurse who had been refused re- registration due to alleged ongoing health concerns. After a one-day hearing and careful cross examination of the NMC’s expert witness, the nurse was restored to the register. NMC v AL - Jennifer acted for a nurse in this dual handed case concerning multiple charges relating to alleged poor care of a patient’s catheter. Jennifer made successful submissions of no case to answer in relation to some of the charges and then successful submissions resulting in findings of no misconduct for the remainder of the charges. NMC v SA - Jennifer defended a nurse in this high profile case involving a nurse working for an NHS Trust for over 17 years without a work permit. This case involved 12 charges, some of which alleged dishonesty regarding the non-disclosure of her work status and her interaction with colleagues. The case, on the face of it, should have attracted a striking off order. However, Jennifer managed to persuade the panel to impose a 6 months suspension order. NMC v ES - Jennifer represented a nurse in this technically complex case concerning a Cardiac Services Team Leader. Jennifer successfully made an application of no case to answer in relation to several charges including a “contribution to death” charge. After which the only charges that remained were the charges which had been admitted by the registrant. Jennifer then went on to make submissions resulting in findings of no misconduct for the remainder of the charges. NMC v Yeboah - Jennifer represented a nurse charged with dishonesty and working excessive hours. Jennifer secured the least restrictive of sanctions, a caution order, after a 3-day hearing. JS v NMC - Jennifer successfully represented a registrant who had been denied registration due to historic convictions, some of which included offences involving dishonesty. Education Prior to coming to the Bar Jennifer was the sole In House Advocate at a specialist education law solicitors firm. Jennifer continues to provide legal advice and representation in the entire spectrum of education law. Areas of practice include:- Appeals to SEND tribunal Discrimination Claims in the FTT Admissions and exclusions from schools Independent Review Panels Clerking at Independent Review Panel hearings and governing Body meetings Claims against independent schools Claims of educational negligence Breach of contract and negligence Judicial review Student fitness to practise proceedings Plagiarism Termination of studies Issues with PhDs studies/ supervision Appeals to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator Disciplinary and grievance procedures Jennifer has also run education law seminars/training days and given presentations to Central Law Training (the UK’s leading provider of post qualification training and accreditation for professionals working in the legal sector), Education Law Association (ELAS), Independent Appeal Panels, barristers’ chambers and a youth project run by the Supreme Court “Big Voice London”. Professional Discipline and regulatory law Jennifer has a well-established practice, successfully representing clients in the field of professional discipline and regulatory law. Focussing on defence, Jennifer has an excellent track record of positive outcomes in complex and sensitive cases. Jennifer routinely defends clients before professional bodies including the Nursery & Midwifery Council, General Dental Council, General Pharmaceutical Council, Health and Care Professions Council, Ofsted, and the Teaching Regulation Agency. Representation of professionals is both at first instance and on appeal to the Care Standards Tribunal and High Court. Jennifer’s practice includes representation in local level proceedings, CQC cases and Disclosure and Barring Service appeals; providing clients with continuity of representation in ancillary regulatory matters.

Jim Hirschmann

Overview Jim Hirschmann helps clients to navigate the law and resolve disputes. He often acts for families or for public bodies. He specialises in adult social care, child social care, education and family law. His caseload regularly concerns public law issues related to his core practice areas including judicial review proceedings and public inquiries. Jim is hardworking, thorough, and adept at explaining complex law in straightforward terms. This is reflected in comments from solicitors such as "a huge thank you for everything you have done on this case which went far and beyond" and comments from judges about Jim’s advocacy as “helpful” and “extremely clear.” Outside of busy work demands, Jim enjoys sport with a particular interest in rugby, running and hiking. He likes travelling and has an armchair interest in philosophy. Jim is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact him for a copy of his privacy notice which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may collect about you, or that is provided to him, will be processed. He will provide a copy of this to you upon request. Court of protection Jim Hirschman has a busy practice handling both health and welfare and property and affairs cases. His experience in judicial review and family has contributed to making him a thoughtful and effective advocate who helps find acceptable solutions to parties’ strongly held but conflicting views. Health and Welfare Jim has experience in health and welfare matters. He has worked on cases concerning: conflicting capacity evidence, including fluctuating capacity forced marriage protection orders capacity declarations and best interests decisions including issues relating to sexual relations, marriage, care, residence, medical treatment and alcohol consumption where a young adult with significant health needs should be educated He is regularly instructed by private individuals and local authorities. Property and Affairs In the property and affairs context, Jim has experience of cases involving: conflicting capacity evidence applications to appoint a deputy disputes around enduring or lasting powers of attorney matters complicated by the involvement of trusts, alleged dissipation of assets, extent of a deputy’s authority, disputed wills and complex business and land ownership arrangements He has been instructed by private individuals, local authorities and by the Office of the Public Guardian. Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court, or Safeguarding of Vulnerable Adults and Children Jim has been regularly instructed in cases involving the inherent jurisdiction of the high court often related to issues of deprivation of liberty in cases involving a young person’s drug abuse, exploitation or involvement in organised crime. With a Master of Laws (LLM) in public law, he is well placed to consider challenges against the decisions of local authorities (including judicial reviews and claims under the Human Rights Act 1998). Medical Treatment Jim is willing to accept instructions surrounding medical treatment. He has experience of best interests decision concerning addiction, rehabilitation and the way in which medication should be administered. He is often instructed by local authorities. Notable cases include: Re A - a complicated case culminating in a 7-day final hearing. The case necessitated live evidence and cross examination of a variety of experts including from a neurodevelopmental disability psychiatrist, an independent social worker, a hepatologist, and a psychiatrist specialising in addiction. The Local Authority’s care plan was accepted at a contested final hearing despite resistance from privately represented parties. Re B - A section 21a challenge. It was complex in the sense that P had a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder which had historically resulted in numerous hospital admissions but there were also periods where limited interventions were required. The issue before the Court was whether P should return to live at home with a package of care or whether she should reside in a residential care home. The Local Authority’s position was that P’s best interests required her to be cared for in the care home. This was accepted by the Judge at a contested final hearing. A v Z - instructed by a local authority who sought a deprivation of liberty order. The case related to a young person who had run away from her care home and suffered significant harm after becoming involved with suspected members of a county lines network. The deprivation of liberty order was granted under the inherent jurisdiction of the high court. B v C - represented a mother in a forced marriage protection case that raised issues of capacity to marry, capacity to consent to sexual relations and the jurisdiction of the family court. E v F - acted for the Office of the Public Guardian in a matter concerning an invalid lasting power of attorney and cross-border assets. The registration of the lasting power of attorney was duly to be cancelled. Education Jim Hirschmann's education law practice includes the following: Schools and Further Education: Jim has considerable experience in advising parents and schools on admissions, exclusions and SEND appeals, specifically: Representing parties where there has been a decision to exclude a pupil (or where such a decision is anticipated). Acting in appeals to the First Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), often relating to Education, Health and Care Plans. His caseload includes discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010. Considering and advising on the law on pupil admissions. Higher Education Jim has experience of advising students and universities on student disciplinaries, contractual disputes, academic appeals and governance (including of students’ unions). Regulatory and Safeguarding In a regulatory context, Jim has experience of considering challenges to licensing decisions made by Ofsted. In a safeguarding context, Jim has experience advising schools, teachers, and local authorities of their respective rights and duties. Public law and Judicial Review Jim's Court of Protection and Family Law experience often intersects with Education Law and has given him considerable advocacy experience. With an LLM in Public Law, Jim is particularly well placed to assist clients with administrative law disputes (including Judicial Review proceedings). Recent notable cases: The King (on the application of (1) LM and (2) AM) v An Academy Trust [2024] EWHC 2267 (Admin) - a school exclusions case that offers guidance on the approach that governing bodies should take when their earlier decision is quashed by an Independent Review Panel (“IRP”) and they are directed to consider reinstatement. Jim represented the Claimants after permission had been refused on the papers. He succeeded in obtaining permission to bring the claim. The substantive claim ultimately failed on the basis that, in the Judge’s view, the governors had discharged their duty to "conscientiously consider” the IRP’s decision. A v B - Jim successfully persuaded an independent review panel that the decision to permanently exclude a pupil, due to gang-related violence, should be reconsidered as the school had not done enough to explore options other than expulsion. B v C - Jim represented an international university facing a six-figure claim for breach of a franchise agreement and through written negotiations improved his client’s position by over £100,000. C v D - Jim represented a student challenging the decision to suspend him from his university and successfully mitigated the sanction imposed. E v F - Jim represented an excluded child before a governors' review panel. The pupil had been permanently excluded for bringing a BB gun into school and discharging it. The case involved legal submissions in relation to a headteacher’s discretion to depart from the school’s policy. The governors ordered the pupil’s reinstatement. Administrative and Public Law Judicial review Jim Hirschmann is regularly instructed by claimants and defendants in judicial review claims. His public law practice has seen him successfully challenge and defend decisions made by public bodies relating to adult social care, child social care and education law (including SEND provision, school exclusions, safeguarding and other regulatory matters including licensing by Ofsted). Public inquiries Jim accepts instructions on behalf of public inquiries and core participants. He has experience acting as a second junior counsel team member for a major public inquiry. This means he has familiarity with the Inquiries Act 2005, the Inquiry Rules 2006, rule 9 drafting and complex document management utilising relativity (including delivering training). Recent notable cases The King (on the application of (1) LM and (2) AM) v An Academy Trust [2024] EWHC 2267 (Admin) - a school exclusions case that offers guidance on the approach that governing bodies should take when their earlier decision is quashed by an Independent Review Panel (“IRP”) and they are directed to consider reinstatement. Jim represented the Claimants after permission had been refused on the papers. He succeeded in obtaining permission to bring the claim. The substantive claim ultimately failed on the basis that, in the Judge’s view, the governors had discharged their duty to "conscientiously consider” the IRP’s decision. A v B - Jim drafted judicial review grounds concerning (1) a local authority’s failure to secure provision specified in an Education Health and Care Plan in breach of section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (2) a school’s failure to admit a pupil contrary to section 43 of the Children and Families Act 2014. The claim succeeded. C v D - Jim successfully drafted grounds of appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 with the result that the local authority conceded the unsuitability of the property offered and made an offer afresh. E v F - Jim drafted correspondence on behalf of his client following a local authority’s failure to offer proper support to a special guardian. It resulted in an extensive training package being offered to his client and reconsideration of the financial support due. G v H - Jim drafted summary grounds of resistance in a case concerning a local authority’s failure to secure provision specified in an Education Health and Care Plan in breach of section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014. The Claim settled on terms favourable to his client. Family Jim Hirschmann advises parents and public bodies on their respective rights and duties. He has particular experience in cases involving children's social care, safeguarding issues, disability, human rights and related public law issues. His background in family law is complemented by his expertise in education law and the Court of Protection. With a Master of Laws (LLM) in public law, he is well placed to advise clients in cases concerning the decisions of local authorities (including judicial reviews and claims for damages under the Human Rights Act 1998). Notable cases include: B v F - acted for a local authority that sought authorisation for the deprivation of liberty in relation to a young person found in a property known for heavy drug usage, including heroin. The case involved circumstances where there was no suitable secure accommodation unit nor children’s home available. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court was invoked to protect the young person whilst attempts to secure a more suitable placement continued. G v H - acted for the local authority in a five day fact-find hearing and up to final hearing. Significant findings were made against the parents in relation to serious non-accidental injuries suffered by the child including a lip laceration, left radial shaft fracture, an injury to the left femur and multiple bruises. The case involved consideration of ambiguous expert medical evidence. Adoption and placement orders were ultimately made. F v M - acted for a local authority in a contested seven day final hearing involving allegations of corruption, drug abuse, domestic violence and peripheral serious organised crime. The local authority’s care plan was endorsed and the final order that they sought was made. B v Y - instructed to act on behalf of a local authority who sought an emergency protection order. The case related to children who had been exposed to prolonged neglect. The order was granted. Re FL (a Child): [2020] EWCA Civ 20 - as a pupil, assisted in the successful defence of a special guardianship order in favour of a maternal grandmother.

Jo Martin KC

Overview Jo Martin KC is a specialist crime and public/regulatory law barrister who was called to the Bar in 2005 having previously qualified as a solicitor in 1996. Prior to moving to Devon, she worked for both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office in London and then became a Higher Court advocate, before joining Devon Chambers. Since transferring to the Bar, Jo has developed a heavyweight practice both prosecuting and defending in all areas of criminal law. She joined 3PB in August 2019. She has a particular specialism in child cruelty cases, particularly those involving significant medical issues and linked family proceedings. Prior to taking Silk, she was on the Specialist Regulatory Panel List B, prosecuting on behalf of both the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. Since becoming a Silk in 2018, Jo has prosecuted cases of murder, child cruelty, and a death on a construction site for the HSE and has been regularly instructed to prosecute cases of large and complex fraud, historic child abuse and rape and causing death by dangerous/careless driving. Jo's defence practice mirrors that of her prosecution work. She is routinely instructed in large fraud, money laundering and trading standard cases, and the associated confiscation hearings as well as rapes and historic sex abuse cases. She is particularly known for the care with which she handles vulnerable and young defendants. She is universally credited by those who instruct her for the care she takes in preparation, the confidence she instils in clients - whether the defendant or the police - and her jury friendly manner in court. She is a founder member of the Western Circuit Women's Forum and a mentor of junior women barristers. She is also a trainer on the Western Circuit pupillage course and has also trained police officers, CPS and Local Authorities on confiscation and money laundering as well as training overseas. Jo also does pro bono work on behalf of the charity, Advocate. Outside of work, her interests include running, triathlons, swimming in rivers, gardening and playing the guitar badly. Articles/ Newsletters/ Seminars Murder and a bit of Manslaughter - with Piers Norsworthy (2018). Presentation at Derriford Hospital Child Cruelty:S5 Domestic Violence, Crime Victims Act 2004 and Joint Family/Crime Hearings (2016) Expert Evidence - an Overview and What Next (2015) Devon Chambers in the Supreme Court - Jo Martin & Russell James (Aug/Sept 2014) Update on POCA (2014) Crime Jo Martin QC was called to the Bar in 2005 having previously qualified as a solicitor in 1996. Prior to moving to Devon, she worked for both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office in London and then became a Higher Court advocate, before joining Devon Chambers. Jo has a considerable and busy practice both prosecuting and defending in all areas of criminal law, a rape specialist with substantial caseload of large and complex fraud, historic child abuse and rape and causing death by dangerous/careless driving. She has a particular specialism in child cruelty cases, particularly those involving significant medical issues and linked family proceedings. Jo was, prior to taking Silk, on the Specialist Regulatory Panel List B, prosecuting on behalf of both the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. Since becoming a Silk in 2018, Jo has prosecuted cases of murder, child cruelty, and a death on a construction site for the HSE. Her defence practice mirrors that of her prosecution work. She is routinely instructed in large fraud, money laundering and trading standard cases, and the associated confiscation hearings as well as rapes and historic sex abuse cases. She is particularly known for the care with which she handles vulnerable and young defendants. Reported Cases Supreme Court R-v-Harvey (Jack Frederick) Supreme Court [2015] UKSC 73; Court of Appeal: [2013] EWCA Crim 1104 (defending from the Crown Court to the Supreme Court). The point ultimately dealt with by the Supreme Court was whether VAT that had been paid to or accounted for to HMRC should be included (as the Crown contended) in the gross turnover figure of a company when assessing the level of confiscation to be paid. The Supreme Court held (in favour of the defence) that the VAT should be excluded. Court of Appeal R-v-Elliot Allen [2017] EWCA Crim 458 - successful appeal against sentence passed on a young driver who had pleaded guilty to death by dangerous driving. The sentence was reduced significantly from 2 years 6 months to 12 months. R-v-Michael Wilkes [2017] EWCA Crim 577 - successful defence against appeal by the Attorney General that the sentence of 6 years and 8 months for an elderly defendant who had pleaded guilty to attempted murder was unduly lenient. R-v-Worth [2014] EWCA Crim 435 - successful appeal against sentence in relation to money laundering. The judge had erroneously sentenced on the basis of a total amount greater that the amount on the indictment. R-v-C (Sandy) [2013] EWCA Crim 1815 - appeal against the sentence imposed in relation to a historic sex abuse and in particular whether the court should take into account other sentences that post dated the offending. Appeal dismissed. AG's Reference no 125 of 2010 (R-v-Draper) [2011] EWCA 640 - defence of appeal by the Attorney General to increase the sentence of a young man who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter of his 4 month old baby. The Court increased the sentence from 3 years 6 months to 5 years. R-v-Burridge [2010] EWCA Crim 2847 - prosecution junior in response to 4 day appeal against conviction. The defendant had been convicted of murder of his baby who had the classic triad of injuries and rib fractures of different ages. The issue on appeal revolved around 'fresh evidence' relating to the age of the rib fractures. The court ultimately concluded that the conviction for murder was unsafe (and submitted a conviction for manslaughter) Recent Notable Cases Murder R-v-LG (2019) - Truro Crown Court. Convicted of murder of partner by a single stab wound. Issues involved a factual dispute about whether the victim had stabbed himself and, if the defendant had stabbed him, whether she had done so in either self defence or through loss of control. R-v-PR (2018) - Truro Crown Court. Unusual case involving a failed suicide pact. The defendant’s plea to manslaughter was accepted by the Crown after evidence obtained from South Africa. R-v-D (2019) - Truro Crown Court. Leading Rupert Taylor. Defendant in 70’s charged with murder of 81 year old partner. Following the obtaining of psychiatric evidence is became clear that the defendant had an undiagnosed and unusual form of dementia (Lewy Body). Prosecution accepted plea to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility following psychiatric reports. Sentence under MHA. R-v-S (2018) - Truro Crown Court. Leading Emily Cook. Defendant charged with murder of young baby with medical signs of being shaken. Prosecution accept plea to manslaughter. Defendant sentenced to 5 years. R-v-L (2018) - Truro Crown Court - led by Anna Vigars QC. A ‘body less’ murder prosecution involving considerable evidence relating to ‘proof of life’. Defence was that the victim was still alive. Defendant convicted after 3 week trial R-v-B (2017) - Exeter Crown Court - led by Kate Brunner QC. Defendant had put a potato into the gas flue of his neighbour. Crown accepted plea to unlawful act manslaughter. Defendant received 2 years 8 months which was not overturned on appeal. Fraud R-v-M and others (Operation Fardel) (2017-9) - Harrow Crown Court - leading junior (with Julia Cox) Instructed by CPS South West Complex Casework unit - prosecuting 6 defendants for laundering in the region of £2 million through 'harvested' bank accounts and through the Post Office. The underlying crime was 'phishing fraud': fraudsters got victims to transfer their savings by pretending they were calling from the bank. All 6 defendants pleaded guilty after the case was fully opened to the jury. The sentences imposed ranged from 6 years imprisonment to 12 months suspended. Following contested hearing, confiscation orders in the sum of £1.5 million. R-v-M (2018) - Truro Crown Court - large DWP fraud with loss to the public purse of some £1.5 million. D constantly changed names, addresses and gave false details about disabilities over an 18 year period to make false applications in his own name and in the names of other people. The defendant pleaded guilty shortly before trial. Sentenced to 3 ½ years. R-v-S and others (2016) - Truro Crown Court - 6 handed high value 'boiler room' fraud involving the sale of 'rare earth metals' to victims. The REM's, like other so called 'investment opportunities' such as carbon credits, were worthless. The main defendant pleaded guilty, and the financier was found guilty after trial. The victims were all financially compensated following confiscation proceedings. Child Cruelty R-v-C (2019) - Plymouth Crown Court. Led Sally Daulton. Re-trial following hung jury in 2018. Allegation that mother had deliberately smothered her baby in hospital and given her cocodamol. Issue required complex medical evidence about whether the child’s cessation of breathing had been due to mother’s actions or natural causes. Jury acquitted D. R-v- V and W (2018) - Plymouth Crown Court. Led Sally Daulton. Both parents prosecuted in relation to life changing injuries to 4 month old baby. Charges included s18 GBH and a joint charge of failing to protect the baby. The presentation of the case required detailed analysis of phone records and timings of various injuries to enable the jury to decide which parent had caused the significant injuries. The three week trial ended in conviction of the mother. R-v-W (2017) - child cruelty case in which defendant was one ot two possible suspects for injuries to child. Defendant acquitted after trial. R-v-J (2016) - Plymouth Crown Court - mother had poisoned her child with tramadol. Involved complex medical issues regarding poisoning and breast feeding. Pleaded guilty shortly before trial. Violence R-v-F (2017) - Plymouth Crown Court - attacked husband's new partner by pouring boiling water ver her. Issues of intent and the ability to form intent. Convicted after trial. R-v-M and K (2017) - Bristol Crown Court - attempted murder/s18 of two victims with weapons. Defendants claimed acting in self defence. Convicted after trial. Death by Dangerous Driving R-v-S (2017) - drove mini too fast in Cornish lanes on Boxing Day and killed female passenger in head on collision with another car. Fraud R-v-N - (2018) - Exeter Crown Court - prosecuted for obtaining a mortgage from RBS by signing his wife’s signature 10 years ago. Defence case that the RBS bank manager had been aware and agreed to him signing his wife’s name. Jury acquitted. R-v-L (2016) - Truro Crown Court - prosecuted for mortgage and expenses fraud. Judge stopped the case at half time, following legal submissions. R-v-P (2015) - Truro Crown Court - leading junior (leading Sarah Vince) in 10 week HMRC fraud trial with over 40,000 pages of evidence. The accountant defendant had submitted returns for clients to HMRC which were false. Convicted after trial. R-v-D (2015) - Taunton Crown Court - prosecution of former police officer for fraud. Judge stopped the case at half time following legal submissions. Sexual offences R-v-S (2017) - Woolwich Crown Court - historic sex abuse on step daughter and rape of ex partner. Jury acquitted defendant of rape and hung on child sex abuse. Second jury convicted of child sex abuse. R-v-M (2017) - Truro Crown Court - allegations of touching step child. Racial overtones during trial. Defendant acquitted. R-v-L (2017) - Truro Crown Court - child abuse from over 30 years before. Allegations had been raised before and not prosecuted. Defendant acquitted after trial. R-v-F (2017) - Plymouth Crown Court - Royal Marine acquitted of rape of partner. R-v-D (2016) - Truro Crown Court - former communications officer of the Bishop of Truro for historic sexual abuse. Convicted after trial. R-v-K (2013) - Truro Crown Court - leading junior (leading Julia Cox) - historic child abuse, prosecuted as a satanic sex ring. Defendant convicted after trial. Public Regulatory Jo is a well known prosecutor on the Western Circuit for both the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive and was, prior to taking Silk, on the Specialist Regulatory Panel List B. Notable cases HSE -v- JB Ltd (2019) - Cardiff Crown Court - prosecution of company following death of a young worker on a building site. Prosecution take difficult decision to offer no evidence in relation to health and safety breaches as part of continuous review of the evidence following submissions by the defence. HSE-v-SWH (2017) - Exeter Crown Court - prosecution of company for health and safety breaches following death of a worker whilst fixing potholes in a dual carriageway. Company pleased guilty and fines. HSE-v-MJL (2017) - Truro Crown Court - prosecution following serious injury of worker after dumper truck overturned on building site. R-v-B and others (2014) - Truro Crown Court - leading junior (with Judith Constable) - instructed by the Environment Agency to prosecute 10 defendants for waste and water discharge offences. Some pleaded guilty prior to trial, others pleaded guilty following opening and view. HSE -v- JB Ltd (2019) - Cardiff Crown Court - prosecution of company following death of a young worker on a building site. Prosecution take difficult decision to offer no evidence in relation to health and safety breaches as part of continuous review of the evidence following submissions by the defence. HSE-v-SWH (2017) - Exeter Crown Court - prosecution of company for health and safety breaches following death of a worker whilst fixing potholes in a dual carriageway. Company pleased guilty and fines. HSE-v-MJL (2017) - Truro Crown Court - prosecution following serious injury of worker after dumper truck overturned on building site. R-v-M (2016) - Truro Crown Court - scaffolder prosecuted following death of fellow workman for breaches of Health and Safety regulations. Plead guilty after Goodyear indication. R-v-D (2016) - Truro Crown Court - HR director prosecuted for neglect of elderly patients. Case stopped by the judge at half time following submission. R-v-B and others (2014) - Truro Crown Court - leading junior (with Judith Constable) - instructed by the Environment Agency to prosecute 10 defendants for waste and water discharge offences. Some pleaded guilty prior to trial, others pleaded guilty following opening and view.

John Friel

Overview John Friel is a highly experienced practitioner with particular expertise in public law issues. He has developed a strong practice with extensive experience acting for local authorities, private applicants, charities, independent schools, maintained schools governing bodies and provides a prompt response to instructions. He has won leading cases in the House of Lords, Court of Appeal, and High Court. He is available for direct client access in certain cases. Education John has handled a large number of highly complex, complicated and difficult cases in the Special Education Needs Tribunal. The amount of tribunal cases has increased, and the cases have increased in complexity, and in difficulty.  John has achieved a commendable degree of success in such cases. Publications Special Needs and Legal Entitlement: The Essential Guide to Getting out of the Maze, written by John Friel and Melinda Nettleton, is a straightforward and comprehensive guide to the legal rights of children and young people with special educational needs, and to the Children and Families Act 2014. Recent cases: K v The School and the Special Needs Tribunal, Court of Appeal [2007] ELR 234 John represented the school which established the nature of the defence of justification in Disability Discrimination.  It is the leading case on Justification. L v Clarke and Somerset [1998] ELR 128 This is the leading case on the rights of children with statements of special educational needs. School Admission Appeals Panel for the London Borough of Hounslow v The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow (2002) ELR 602 This case establishing at long last, despite contrary dicta in the Court of Appeal, and some first instance decisions to the contrary that the Human Rights Act does have a significant effect upon school admission appeals, and education law generally. At p.602 May LJ specifically singled out Mr Friel’s submissions for favourable comment. Confirmed Gloucestershire LEA. Gloucestershire Local Education Authority v Gloucestershire Schools Appeal Panel (2002) ELR 309 John appeared for the parents, successfully. O v The London Borough of Harrow & Sherwin (2002) ELR 195 Court of Appeal allowed the parents appeal, John representing the parents, on the issue of the structure of the appellate process under the 1996 Education Act. B v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2008] EWHC 2094 (Admin) John represented a child who appealed against a decision that the respondent local authority had correctly decided to place her at a maintained special school for pupils with a range of special educational needs rather than an independent school for pupils with speech, language and communication difficulties. B County Council v H [2008] EWHC 1070 (Admin) An appeal by a LEA against the decision of a Special Needs Education Tribunal to move a child with ADHD and Autism to another school. Disciplinary and Regulatory Proceedings John’s work in this area naturally overlaps with his work in Judicial Review and Local Government. His wide ranging practice encompasses all areas of reviewing professional conduct for which he has received significant recognition. John has continued to deal with a large number of professional negligence cases, the majority of which settled favourably prior to coming to court and two of which settled in court.  Since the House of Lords’ decision in Phelps v Hillingdon (2001) AC 611, few such cases have been fought to the finish.  The trend continues.  However, in other areas, despite a high degree of success in settling favourably administrative law cases, there have been a number of significant developments. Recent cases: H v Isle of Wight Council 2001 WL 825780 Allegations that a local education authority had negligently failed to protect a dyslexic pupil from bullying or take adequate steps to maintain and support her educational progress were entirely baseless. Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [2001] 2 A.C. 619 House of Lords case concerning the duties of a teacher and whether a local education authority could be vicariously liable for the acts of its employees. It was held that there was no justification for a blanket immunity policy in respect of education officers performing the authority's functions with regard to children with special educational needs. Public and Regulatory John is an expert in all aspects of education law, particularly complex cases involving Special Education Needs, and in disciplinary and regulatory proceedings. His wide ranging and successful track record encompasses professional conduct disputes, professional negligence and administrative law cases.

John Jessup

Overview John completed a 12-month pupillage at 11 Stone Buildings with an emphasis on commercial disputes and personal and corporate insolvency. John now frequently appears in the Business and Property Courts on insolvency matters. John also advises and appears in Court on matters of general commercial litigation, and has developed a busy construction law practice since joining 3PB. John maintains a practice in property disputes, and has appeared in the High Court on matters relating to onerous tenancy administration fees, proprietary estoppel and trusts. John accepts instruction to produce written advice and to draft pleadings in all areas of his expertise, and has significant experience of resolving disputes through alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Construction and engineering Construction John Jessup has a strong grasp of construction theory and practice and a formidable level of technical knowledge. John's working practice in areas of disputed fact is often to speak directly to employers, architects, contractors and experts with whom he is able to converse at a technical level. John has married his experience of complex commercial disputes to his technical background and is well-placed to advise and provide representation on all aspects of construction law. He is familiar with all standard forms of construction contract, and has appeared in several multi-track trials in construction matters. John's previous work has involved drafting pleadings and witness statements for litigation and arbitration, and written submissions in adjudication. John has experience in working on homeowner/builder disputes and larger commercial disputes. Recent cases Cubex (UK) Limited v Balfour Beatty Group Limited [2021] EWHC 3445 (TCC) CS v LE Ltd (2023): Ongoing. Representing the claimant seeking to recover sums invested into a joint construction venture. Part of the issue is how the investment agreement interacts with the decision of an adjudicator on a related matter. AL & K Limited v IC Limited (2023). Ongoing. Representing the claimant homeowner in a homeowner/builder dispute. The case raises the question of whether and how the rights of the employer can be assigned after the dispute has arisen. CP Ltd v GI Ltd & SF Ltd (2023): Ongoing. Representing the claimant developer in a dispute regarding allegedly negligent geotechnical surveys. A Ltd v T (2023): Ongoing. Representing the defendant homeowner in a claim brought by a builder via an asset-less shell company. C v T, Arbitration (2023): Represented, from case drafting through to final hearing, a construction industry membership association and succeeded in arguing that its preferred interpretation of certain founding documents was the correct one. DW v M Ltd (2023): Provided rapid specialist advice and drafting in respect of an emerging construction dispute on a JCT Design and Build Contract. MI Ltd v SM (2022): Represented a homeowner in a three-day homeowner/developer dispute, and succeeded on a defence of estoppel based on pre-contractual promises made by the developer's director. International arbitration (2021): Assisted with drafting and conducted parts of cross-examination during a two-week arbitration between a government and a Caribbean contractor on a multi-million dollar construction dispute. Overview John is an experienced commercial chancery junior. His broad litigation and advisory work cover most areas of the law normally litigated in the Chancery Division, specifically: Insolvency John has experience with complex and high-value disputes between liquidators and former directors, and frequently advises in difficult insolvency matters. He regularly appears on behalf of Companies in disputed winding up proceedings brought by HMRC and private creditors. John also has experience in the field of personal insolvency. Company John has substantial experience in general Company law matters including Directors Duties, complex Shareholders disputes and unfair prejudice petitions. John experience extends to dealing with non-contentious company law matters including applications to rectify the register of charges under the Companies Act 2006, including a recent application to rectify an improperly conducted reduction in its share capital and advising on how to perform the merger of two companies limited by guarantee. Recent cases: ONS Ultimate Holding Ltd v Nair [2022] EWHC 2200 (Ch): Represented the defendant on a multi-day High Court application for summary judgment. CC v F Co (2023). Ongoing: Acting for the Claimant in a High Court professional negligence dispute. G v R & R (2023): Represented third parties and successfully resisted an attempt to unwind the sale of a property which the claimant was attempting to achieve via an urgent injunction application. AK v FLI Limited (2022): Ongoing. Acts for the Defendant company in the High Court in respect of an alleged data protection breach. A v H (2023): Represented administrators on a successful application to force third parties to hand over company documents. L Ltd v E Ltd (2023): Successfully resisted a third party costs order application against a former director of a company. ABG Limited (2023): Advised upon and appeared at an application to restrain advertisement of a winding up petition. A school (2023): Advised a fee-paying school on the effect of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and a proposal to secure unpaid fees by a charge over property. B Ltd (2023): Advised on whether certain transactions were caught by s.127 IA 1986 (clawback provision in respect of transactions made after presentation of a winding up petition) Various v A (2021): Successfully resisted a High Court interim injunction which would have prevented his client from attending his local mosque. C v CP Ltd (2021): Appeared in the High Court and persuaded the court to depart from the usual rule that indemnity costs are awarded where a party commences litigation in breach of an arbitration clause. A v Z (2021): Represented a former director at a two-day claim brought by liquidators for director's misfeasance and transactions at undervalue. BP Ltd v WD (2020): Acted as sole Counsel in a successful 4-day trial relating to unpaid storage fees. CC v NP (2020): Acted for the Defendant in proceedings brought by a vexatious litigant and obtained a civil restraint order via written submissions. L v G (2020): Successfully resisted an application heard in the High Court for third party disclosure. Property and Estates Property and Estates John frequently provides advice and representation in residential property disputes including: Landlord and tenant disputes (eviction proceedings and disrepair claims) Boundary disputes Mortgage repossessions Leaseholder disputes. He also advises commercial landlords and tenants, particularly on complex tenancy contracts. John accepts instructions in this area from professionally-represented clients and via Direct Public Access. Recent cases: Thomas Day v Silva Carmichael, Jashmir Carmichael [2021] EWHC 2728 (Comm): application to vary possession order of residential premises in the High Court. LPS Ltd v CI Ltd & Ors (2023): Represented the defendant in a commercial lease dispute involving issues of assignment and subletting. PI v K Ltd (2023): Represented the defendant at the trial of claims made for rent arrears. More than half of the claim defended on the basis of the landlord's breach of quiet enjoyment, following an oral application to amend the defendant's pleadings. BMSSC Ltd & Ors v LC Limited (2023): Ongoing. Defending claim for leasehold extension under the 1954 Act. Third party disclosure: A successful defence against an application for third party disclosure in the High Court in 2020, the case subsequently settled. Sahota v Prior [2019] EWHC 1418 (Ch): a High-Court consideration of the interaction between section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 and the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. Avon Ground Rents Limited v Sarah Louise Child [2018] UKUT 0204 (LC): successful application to prevent a landlord’s legal costs being charged as an administration fee. Probate John has experience of advising and providing representation in all areas of probate including the interpretation of and challenge to wills. John has particular experience of alternative dispute resolution in disputes relating to wills through mediation and other forms of ADR, and has accepted instructions directly from members of the public in such matters through Direct Public Access. Direct Access John is able to provide Court representation and written advice on a Direct Access basis in all of his practice areas.

Jonathan Gaydon

Overview Jonathan specialises in clinical negligence, personal injury, inquests, public law and costs. He is frequently instructed in complex and high value litigation. Jonathan is an experienced Court advocate who appears daily at trial, inquest, case management and application hearings. He accepts instruction on behalf of both claimants and defendants in the High Court and County Court. Jonathan has particular expertise in matters involving allegations of fraud and fundamental dishonesty. He regularly provides advice, conducts conferences, settles pleadings and attends trials on behalf of insurers. Jonathan successfully represented the claimant in Kenton v Slee Blackwell PLC [2023] EWHC 2613 (SCCO). Before Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker in Solicitors Act proceedings, the claimant was awarded a costs refund of over £200,000. The judgment provides important guidance as to the significance of solicitor-client cost estimates. From 2015 to 2018, Jonathan acted as JJ for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the successful defence of the largest group action ever brought against the UK Government (Kimathi and others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office). Jonathan’s work with the team included drafting pleadings, assisting in the High Court during trial and conducting research. Jonathan takes pride in delivering practical advice, effective advocacy and approachable service in each and every case. Outside of his practice, Jonathan enjoys distance running and playing acoustic guitar. Personal Injury Jonathan has a busy personal injury practice. He is experienced in cases involving serious injury and complex issues of liability/causation. Jonathan acts for both claimants and defendants across a broad spectrum of work including: Employers’ liability Public liability RTAs Credit Hire Highways Act claims Product Liability Jonathan has considerable expertise in cases involving allegations of fraud and fundamental dishonesty. Jonathan regularly advises and appears on behalf of defendant insurance companies. In addition to Court advocacy, Jonathan is happy to provide written advice as to issues of liability, causation, quantum or procedure, to assist in conference and to draft pleadings. Recent instructions include: Advising and drafting pleadings in a claim involving a pilon fracture, calcaneal fracture and acute compartment syndrome following an accident at work. Advising, drafting pleadings and attending at Court in a claim involving open tibia, fibula fractures and significant scarring to a young girl after she was hit by a motor vehicle as a pedestrian. Advising in a claim involving a serious left humerus fracture sustained in an accident at work resulting in permanent restriction of shoulder movement, ongoing symptoms and future expenses. Kenyan Emergency Group Litigation (KEGL): From 2015 to 2018, Jonathan was instructed as JJ (Junior Junior) for the UK Government in a group action brought by 40,000 claimants arising from alleged mistreatment during the Kenyan Emergency in the 1950s. KEGL was one of the longest-running trials in English legal history. The litigation was successfully defended. Clinical Negligence Jonathan is a clinical negligence specialist. He acts for both claimants and defendants. Jonathan offers advice and representation at all stages of litigation in the following areas: Surgical negligence Pharmaceutical negligence Misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis Dental negligence Cosmetic negligence Unnecessary and inappropriate treatment Failure to obtain informed consent In cases involving a fatality, Jonathan is also experienced in providing representation at inquests on behalf of families, local authorities and other interested persons. Recent instructions include: P v An NHS Trust: Drafting pleadings, conducting conference and providing advice to the claimant in a case involving delayed diagnosis of spinal tuberculosis. The claim was successfully settled in the sum of £500,000. C v A Health Board: Advising NHS Wales and attending a JSM in a case involving allegations of delayed diagnosis/treatment of a scapholunate injury. A v An NHS Trust: Drafting pleadings, conducting conference and providing advice to the claimant in a successful claim involving the delayed diagnosis of a developing cauda equina syndrome. B v S and another: Drafting pleadings and assisting in a successful claim involving failure to treat dental carries resulting in significant infection. F v An NHS Trust: Drafting pleadings for the claimant in a successful claim involving a failure by the defendant to remove retained products of conception in the course of a birth. Inquests Jonathan provides representation to local authorities, bereaved families and other interested persons at inquests. He is able to provide ongoing advice and advocacy in any civil claim arising from fatalities. Jonathan has considerable experience of inquests involving complex medical issues, sensitive circumstances and the questioning of expert witnesses. Jonathan’s experience includes: Hospital deaths Suicides Article 2 inquests Emergency services attendance Road traffic deaths Recent inquests include: Re J: Representing the local authority (adult safeguarding) in an inquest touching the tragic drug-associated suicide of a vulnerable young man in his twenties. Re P: Representing an insurance company in an inquest touching the death of an elderly woman arising from a brain injury following a fatal road traffic collision. Re S: Representing the family in an inquest dealing with the tragic death of a young woman who suffered a fatal stroke secondary to acute pyogenic meningitis which was not diagnosed upon her initial attendance at hospital. Re A: An inquest involving two deaths following a high-speed road traffic collision with a motorcyclist.

Joseph England

Overview Joseph England specialises in Employment Law and Business & Commercial Law. His two areas complement each other and often overlap, enabling him to provide advice and representation from a practical and holistic perspective. He is very experienced in both fields and is often trusted with important and complex cases by those instructing. Further detail and examples of previous cases can be found in his specialist pages. Joseph can be instructed directly through the Direct Access Scheme and is happy to discuss potential cases with clients without obligation. He regularly provides training and articles that consider contemporary legal issues and as well as publishing a book, he has been published on Westlaw and in the ELA Briefing. He provides legal updates and news on Twitter @JEnglandCounsel. Joseph is committed to protecting and respecting privacy. Please contact 3PB's Operations Director or any clerk using the details on this website for a copy of Joseph's privacy policy, which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may collect about you, or that is provided to him, will be processed. A copy of this policy will be provided to you within 5 working days of your request. Employment and discrimination Joseph is an extremely experienced practitioner and his busy practice has ensured that he has in-depth experience of a wide variety of areas and types of claim. His success and evident abilities have led clients to trust Joseph with very complex cases. Joseph’s practice benefits from representing and advising both sides of employment disputes and he has been instructed in cases at the Court of Appeal, EAT and at a wide range of final and preliminary hearings in Tribunal and Court. He has appointed as a fee paid (part-time) Employment Tribunal Judge. He sits in the London South region and therefore cannot act in cases assigned to that region (Croydon and Ashford). Joseph can be instructed directly through the Direct Access Scheme and is happy to discuss potential cases with clients without obligation. He regularly delivers training covering areas from nuanced and niche points of law to basics of the Tribunal procedure and mock tribunals. He has been published in the ELA Briefing and provides updates through Chambers’ monthly newsletter and on Twitter @JEnglandCounsel. The below lists provide some examples of cases in which Joseph has been instructed. Whistleblowing Following involvement in various high profile and extremely significant ‘whistleblowing’ claims, Joseph has particular expertise and passion in this area. He is the author of NHS Whistleblowing and the Law and and provides pro bono support to Protect. Mattu v Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust Acting for the successful Claimant who was awarded £1.22mil net in 2016, this case was successful in demonstrating that Dr Mattu had made protected disclosures, suffered detriments as a result, been unfairly dismissed and suffered various acts of disability discrimination, including by his dismissal as a detriment arising from his disability. The case was extremely complex and document-heavy, involving approximately 25,000 documents. Joseph was the only lawyer to have been retained through every stage from 2013-2016 and appeared as Junior to Jack Mitchell then Jane McNeill QC. Please click here for more details. McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust ([2016] IRLR 742) A successful appeal, leading to the expansion of protection under the extended definition of worker and the range of people able to rely on whistleblowing protection. The Claimant was employed as a nurse in a Sexual Assault Referral Centre and her employer was a third party that placed her in the NHS Trust, who denied that she was protected by the legislation. Please click here for more details. Gilbert v X College The Claimant was a learning support assistant in the home economics department and brought claims that she had made PIDs relating to health and safety (unsafe cooking facilities) and breaches of legal obligations (theft of cooking materials). Representing the Respondent, Joseph demonstrated that although PIDs had been made and detriments suffered, these were not because of any PID but because of her wider behaviour and the manner in which she raised her complaints. T v James Paget University Hospital NHS FT This case involved a surgeon dismissed for alleged capability issues. The Claimant brought various claims, including that he had made various PIDs relating to health and safety, particularly around the competency of his colleagues. Joseph was instructed on behalf of the Claimant in the drafting and advisory stages and appeared at a PH. The case had very dense and complicated facts and was consequently listed for an 8 week trial. Joseph produced an 82 page advice dealing with the various claims and the case subsequently settled. B v D NHS Trust Instructed by the Trust, this case considered whether a Claimant was dismissed because of whistleblowing whilst undertaking a student placement at the Hospital. Jurisdiction and the parameters of ‘employment’were key issues. W v Ashcourt Rowan Asset Management Joseph represented the Claimant, who was employed as the Head of Intermediary Sales. The Claimant claimed he had been dismissed as a result of PIDs concerning the way his previous employer had obtained their credit rating, including through allegedly false documentation. The case provided an interesting analysis of to whom a PID could be made and in this case the potential for PIDs to be made to the new employer about an old employer and to the FCA. S v Z Haulage Contractors Representing a national firm of haulage contractors in a claim in which an employee claims to have been dismissed due to raising allegations of a failure to comply with regulations of the Road Haulage Association. X v British Transport Police Representing the Claimant in this lengthy trial, Joseph demonstrated that PIDs had been made despite being contained within extremely dense documentation. The whistleblowing concerned alleged fraudulent overtime claims and health and safety concerns. Discrimination Mattu v Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust Acting for the Claimant who was awarded £1.22mil net, this case successfully demonstrated that Dr Mattu had made protected disclosures, suffered detriments as a result, been unfairly dismissed and suffered disability discrimination. The case was extremely complex and document-heavy, involving approximately 25,000 documents. Joseph was the only lawyer to have been retained through every stage over the 4 year tribunal history, appearing as Junior to Jack Mitchell then Jane McNeill QC . Please click here for more details. Lazarevic v [technology company] 2016 Acting for a multi-million pound I.T. company, Joseph was able to secure a rare 100% Polkey reduction for financial losses arising from a discriminatory dismissal. V v Hertfordshire County Council and Another ([2015] All ER (D) 260) Successfully represented a school caretaker dismissed for allegations loosely based on ‘crossing professional boundaries’ in relation to his interactions with children. The dismissal was exposed by Joseph as involving an investigation that was “seriously flawed”, by the appeal stage “the process was so badly flawed, it was irredeemable” and an act of sex discrimination. At the remedy hearing, the tribunal nevertheless awarded a nearly 100% Polkey reduction to the Claimant’s compensation. However, Joseph successfully appealed and compensation was increased from £1135 to over £60,000, in addition to an award of over £20,000 for injury to feelings. Please click here for more details. Dawes v X County Council Representing a County Council in a complex claim of disability discrimination arising out of difficult issues involving the long term sickness absence of a carer dismissed for his absence, successfully defending claims of direct, indirect, ‘reasonable adjustments’ and ‘related’ discrimination. Chikale v Okedina [2018] All ER (D) 86 (Jan) (UKEAT/0152/17) Joseph appeared against leading and junior counsel in an appeal considering the scope of a defence of illegality based on the expiry of a migrant domestic worker’s working visa. L v G Representing a software company against various discrimination claims, including Equal Pay, sex and race discrimination during a trial lasting 11 days. K v T NHS Foundation Trust and another Representing a Claimant paramedic in an ongoing claim involving harassment through text messages and appearances outside the Claimant’s home as well as victimisation for complaints then brought by the Claimant. The employer is relying upon the statutory defence and therefore the claim will consider the extent of liability if discrimination is proved. E v B School Representing the school against various claims of disability discrimination brought by a teacher, including relating to dismissal for disability related absence arising out of alleged depression. Restrictive Covenants and Employee Competition Joseph has appeared and advised in a number of cases in this area, often leading to settlement. Work in this area often overlaps and is complemented with his expertise in commercial cases outside of traditional employment relationships, such as director and shareholder disputes. Cases frequently involve the finance and manufacturing sectors and involve confidential information and trade secrets. Examples of cases include defending an application for damages brought by an employer against an ex-employee for the use of confidential data used to poach clients and the drafting of an application for an injunction to prevent a football agent from poaching players. Unfair Dismissal Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust v Mundangepfupfu ([2015] All ER (D) 265) At the EAT, various grounds of appeal successfully resisted concerning unfair dismissal and the balance between substitution of a tribunal’s decision and the correct exercise of the ‘range of reasonable responses test’. Other grounds of appeal resisted included bias and perversity. Remitted for remedy. V v Hertfordshire County Council and Another ([2015] All ER (D) 260) Successfully represented a school caretaker dismissed for allegations loosely based on ‘crossing professional boundaries’ in relation to his interactions with children. The dismissal was exposed by Joseph as involving an investigation that was “seriously flawed”, by the appeal stage “the process was so badly flawed, it was irredeemable” and an act of sex discrimination. At the remedy hearing, the tribunal nevertheless awarded a nearly 100% Polkey reduction to the Claimant’s compensation. However, Joseph successfully appealed and compensation was increased from £1135 to over £60,000, in addition to an award of over £20,000 for injury to feelings. Please click here for more details. Al Mustafa v Ibrahim (UKEATPA/0830/14) At the EAT, an appeal against a decision of a Registrar that an appeal was lodged out of time, itself an appeal against a tribunal decision that a claim form making a claim of unfair dismissal had been submitted out of time and there were no grounds to extend time under the ‘not reasonably practicable’ test. Boynton v West London NHS Trust Representing the music therapy teacher at Broadmoor psychiatric hospital, successfully demonstrating employee status despite no written contract and consequentially gaining a concession on claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal. P v Topps Tiles UK Ltd Successfully representing a Claimant in a conduct dismissal, demonstrating that although dismissal could have been fair, reliant on computer data of log-in times, on the facts it nevertheless was unfair. L v Lann & Hummell UK Ltd A claim of unfair dismissal arising out of misconduct allegations for making allegedly defamatory remarks on Facebook. J v WBTA Representing a Claimant whose company was purchased by the Respondent, only for the Respondent to swiftly dismiss him for alleged misconduct. The evidence of the Respondent’s Director was exposed by Joseph at trial to be “extremely unsatisfactory...totally unreliable”. F v Mouchel Representing an accountant against a global firm, bringing a claim of unfair dismissal based on a sham redundancy after a TUPE transfer led to the Claimant being employed on a much higher salary than her comparable new colleagues. Transfer of Undertakings Joseph’s complementary practice in Business and Commercial Law enhances his Employment practice and he is often instructed in cases involving an overlap between the two, notably in matters involving TUPE transfers. Samra and others v Optimax and others Representing a test Claimant following the purchase by Optimax of Ultralase, a 5 day PH considered whether there was a transfer of undertaking between the two companies, against junior and leading Counsel. L and others v Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership and NHS Trust and others Representing one of four Respondents in a claim in which numerous Claimants had claimed to be employees arising out service provision changes. Joseph’s client was held not to be liable. Tucker and others v Premier Security Services and others Representing a Claimant employed to monitor CCTV with one company, the service for which was then brought in house to the County Council, then transferred to another company. The case looked at whether there had been a service provision change at any point between 4 different respondents. R v Ad Valorem Accounting and another Representing a Claimant bookkeeper, whose employer was purchased by another, then allegedly kept separate by a complex series of transactions and name swaps between companies. F v Mouchel Representing an accountant against a global firm, bringing a claim of unfair dismissal based on a sham redundancy after a TUPE transfer led to the Claimant being employed on a much higher salary than her comparable new colleagues. Conduct and Internal Resolution Joseph has been appointed to determine internal employment matters, including misconduct cases and grievances. His employment expertise ensures that he approaches such matters fully cognisant of correct and fair procedure and his appointment ensures independence within the decision making process. His experience in these matters builds upon his selection to sit on Police Misconduct Disciplinary Panels as a tribunal member, principally considering cases of misconduct considering actions against officers under the Police Conduct Regulations 2008 and Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 . His vast experience in particular of cases for and against the NHS has ensured that Joseph is fully aware of the unique and sometimes complex features of NHS regulations and disciplinary procedures. Other cases have involved a wide number of regulatory bodies, including the FCA, GDC and NMC. Working time, holiday, sickness Numerous of the claims detailed elsewhere have involved additional contractual claims for remuneration across the full spectrum of claims and the following provide further specific examples: Weeks and another v G National Care Homes Representing a chain of national care homes in what was being treated as a test case, Joseph successfully ensured the dismissal of two claims for the payment of National Minimum Wage during ‘sleep-in shifts’. Please click here for more details. K National Care Provider Following a HMRC review, this chain of national care providers sought Joseph’s advice in conference on whether the National Minimum Wage was payable to staff who had lengthy breaks between visiting clients and during sleep in shifts at care homes. Palmer v Sopwell House Hotels Representing a Claimant beauty spa therapist for various claims relating to underpayment of her wages. The Tribunal stated it had “considerable sympathy” for the Claimant’s confusion over her pay slips and the reality of her payments as against her contract were considered over a 3 day trial. The case looked at issues including whether there was any bonus, whether commission included VAT and whether the Claimant should have been paid hourly or monthly. Remuneration, Bonuses and Notice Pay Numerous of the claims detailed elsewhere have involved additional contractual claims for remuneration across the full spectrum of claims. Palmer v Sopwell House Hotels Representing a Claimant beauty spa therapist for various claims relating to underpayment of her wages. The Tribunal stated it had “considerable sympathy” for the Claimant’s confusion over her pay slips and the reality of her payments as against her contract were considered over a 3 day trial. The case looked at issues including whether there was any bonus, whether commission included VAT and whether the Claimant should have been paid hourly or monthly. Smith v Wholefoods Ltd Representing the Respondent in a claim that considered the validity of a clause relating to overpayment of wages against a promise to pay a higher than normal bonus shortly before the Claimant’s resignation, including overlap with excess salary provided in a final salary payment. Jurisdiction E v Nygard International Partnership Conducting a hearing via video link with Canada, including cross examination, to successfully demonstrate that the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a breach of contract case against a Canadian company brought by an employee based in the UK. Yasim v X School and B v D NHS Trust Representing a NHS Trust and separately a school, in both cases Joseph successfully had the claims of discrimination struck out on the basis that the Claimants were engaged through student placement pursuant to university courses and therefore the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims. Commercial Joseph is an experienced practitioner in Commercial and Business Law. He provides practical and accurate solutions and is an accomplished trial advocate, developing key experience in his other complementary area of Employment. His Commercial and Business work focuses on matters of Company and Partnership Law, Insolvency and Trading and Financing, outlined below. Company and Partnership Law Joseph's knowledge of Business and Commercial Law complements his Employment practice and he is often instructed in cases involving an overlap between the two, such as matters involving Director disputes, TUPE transfers or civil claims for matters arising out of employment. Examples include: Claims to enforce restrictive covenants and/or claim damages following a breach. Cases frequently involve the finance and manufacturing sectors and involve confidential information and trade secrets. Examples of cases include defending an application for damages brought by an accountancy firm against an ex-employee for the use of confidential data used to poach clients and the drafting of an application for an injunction to prevent a football agent from poaching players. Disputes between directors and shareholders. Examples include advising an ex-director and sole shareholder as to his rights over money paid pursuant to a ‘loan note’ for a company once he was no longer a director or shareholder, and advising the remaining director on methods to control a disruptive ex-director following redundancy. Defending an employer from claims of Harassment, Deceit and Negligence brought by their dismissed in-house Counsel. Defending a claim by a contractor against an outsourcing company for profits between the outsourcing company and end user, leading to successful strike out following Joseph’s drafting of an application. Disputes over bonuses, commission, wages, pensions, references and a number of cases involving commission payments relating to agency work. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Strengthening his experience in Company Law, Joseph has extensive knowledge of Insolvency Law, having appeared in a wide range of hearings in both the High Court and County Court, including: Advising Directors in numerous cases about their rights and those of employees upon the insolvency of companies, including issues such as Director’s duties, TUPE obligations and the validity of late remuneration. Successfully obtaining High Court Injunctions to prevent the presentation of winding up certificates. Applications for a vesting order to enable trustees to realise the sale of a bankrupt’s investment property. Applications to wind up companies, take carriage of winding up petitions, rescind winding up orders, make bankruptcy orders and annul bankruptcy orders. Making and resisting applications to set aside statutory demands. Charging and possession order applications, including for an extension of time to register a charge and commercial property. Restoring companies to the Register for the purposes of future litigation Cases involving an overlap with Joseph’s Employment practice, for example those involving TUPE transfers and questions over the implications of employees. Trading and Business Financing Joseph’s solid grasp of contract and tort law has meant that he frequently appears in commercial trials, covering the full range from small to multi-track, at appellate level and first instance and in consumer contracts and between businesses. Joseph has a particular strength in cases of professional negligence. Examples include: Numerous professional negligence disputes, including cases involving legal advice (often overlapping with Joseph’s Employment Law expertise), building work, surveyors, architects, tax advisers, vets and even boat repairers. Representing national utility companies in a variety of contractual claims, often leading to strike out following summary judgment. This work has included appearances to resist applications for warrants under the Rights of Entry Act 1954. Advising a national hair care company on the enforceability of a contract for a ‘salon loan’ of over £500,000. Myriad interim applications, including for summary judgment, the attachment of penal notices to aid enforcement, third party disclosure orders, security for costs, costs applications (including within the tax tribunal Starmill UK Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 681), appeals and setting aside summary judgments.

Joseph Giret KC

Overview Joseph Giret KC is a barrister and mediator. He is registered with the respected regulatory body, the Civil Mediation Council as a mediator and is Bar Council / Society of Mediators accredited. His practise is a blend of advisory, drafting and court appearances through litigation or mediation whenever possible. His personal skill sets are perfectly suited to bringing solutions for clients through mediation. He is on the panel of available mediators through 3PB chambers. He has been described in Court as an “Iron fist in a velvet glove”. With 35 years of experience building his skills, Joseph puts his clients’ best interests front and centre. He is a problem solver and delivers sensible and appropriate solutions whilst being “one of the most approachable and friendly QC’s we have had the pleasure to instruct”. Joseph enjoys a formidable reputation for his civil and commercial expertise. His expertise covers: Business and Commercial law, including Intellectual Property and Company and Partnership Disputes Chancery commercial Alternative Dispute Resolution and Mediation All Litigation: embracing all stages from preparation to trial proceedings Civil and Criminal Fraud investigations / allegations including FCA instituted proceedings Professional Discipline and Negligence Sports disputes of every type and nature. For more information please refer to the Practice Area drop downs below or click here. Joseph is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Public Access scheme. Joseph has lived and worked in the offshore jurisdiction of Bermuda which operates under an American style fused profession model. While in Bermuda, he has worked closely with attorneys from the USA and with very high net worth company representatives. Notable recent cases: FCA -v- R.M - Advising and acting for client charged with contravention of financial regulations in an action brought by FCA on behalf of shareholders. £5M claim. HM -v- OL - Shareholders dispute and breaches of Directors duties arising from a residents’ management company and association. W.I + S.I -v- TW - $20M claim for repayment of investment sums obtained by fraud, in respect of a high net worth building project in Brazil that failed. Linked Claims filed in USA. P Ltd and S.T + B.M - Claim against former employee, and Iraqi national for restoration of monies taken as part of a sophisticated fraud on Iraqi employer; monies hidden in 40 separate accounts including a number in Iraq. N.M -v- Crystal Palace FC - Claim by former Education supplier to young and aspiring academy players for breach of employment contract. D.H + N.H -v- S+HB+P Ltd - Family business / shareholders dispute over entitlements and construction of shareholders agreements. Acted on behalf of the Bermuda Royal Gaming Commission against former whistle blower employee. Injunction obtained to be served out of the jurisdiction [USA]; object to prevent further disclosures in contravention of employment contract; high level Governmental concerns about highly confidential information being made public and wrecking a scheme to bring Casinos to Bermuda. Commercial Joseph is a specialist commercial law Barrister with an emphasis on insolvency law and company law. He enjoys a formidable reputation for his civil and commercial expertise and is recognised by the Legal 500 as a leading commercial silk. Joseph has particular experience advising and representing clients in a wide range of high value commercial disputes, breach of contract, trademark disputes and franchise agreements. His experience also extends to advising and representing legal and financial professionals in claims for liability. Joseph welcomes instructions across the following areas: Company and Partnership Disputes Insolvency & Bankruptcy Trademark Disputes Franchise Agreements Professional Liability claims Recent disputes:  Joseph frequently undertakes drafting and advisory work in multi-million pound claims including: A claim brought by a Hong Kong based company, in a dispute over the construction of a profit sharing contract and franchise agreement; High value claim by a firm of solicitors against a former partner and director for breach of fiduciary duties under both common law and statute as a company director; Acted for a partnership of Medical professionals in an acrimonious dispute over the terms of their partnership agreement. Public and regulatory Joseph's experience includes all types of regulatory disputes: advising on regulatory aspects of sports law, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and The GMC. He has had the conduct of disputes with HMRC offences (VAT, Company Act and Tax issues), insider share dealings, as well as fraud, bribery and corruption allegations. He is a highly experienced yachtsman with experience in marine law issues. Recent disputes include: Acting for the Defendants £1.5m claim brought before the Queens Bench Division by the HMRC in a claim for under-declared profits and siphoning off cash into property purchases. The matter was successfully resolved before commencement of a 15 day trial by negotiating a satisfactory compromise and settlement. He leads legal teams in lengthy and complex trials, acting at every tribunal level. Joseph also acts for parties involved in mediation and arbitration.

June Venters KC

June Venters KC was called to the bar in 2017, having been the first woman solicitor to be appointed as Queen’s Counsel in 2006. June works in the fields of Public Law Child Care, Family Law, International Child Abduction, and Crime, acting in the most serious cases within those fields of law, such as the Damilola Taylor murder; the Dome robbery; a high profile celebrity’s brother historical sexual offence and a well-known baby murder trial. Her busy practice is focused on: Representing numerous defendants accused of sexual offences of children including rape; indecent assault [as it then was]; sexual assault, bestiality. Representing the social worker in the Victoria Climbié case in respect of the Care Standards Tribunal. Representing numerous parents and children, Local Authorities and interveners in care proceedings where sexual abuse and non-accidental injury alleged as well as Satanic Abuse, declaration of parentage and paternity issues. June regularly represents clients in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Representing parents and other parties in private law proceedings including cases involving parental alienation/implacable hostility, allegations involving sexual and physical abuse and domestic abuse and declaration of parentage and paternity issues. Her extraordinary blend of professional qualifications, expertise, and experience means she is uniquely placed to deliver the highest level of client service. June is described by the legal directory Chambers & Partners as " compassionate and exceptionally hard working," "a tenacious and fearless advocate" and "extremely well prepared and dedicated to bringing the best to clients." She is also rated as "a very high-calibre performer" who is "extremely personable and is a really strong presence." She was nominated at the Family Law Awards for "Family KC of the Year" in 2023 and 2022 and in 2019 was shortlisted for "Woman Solicitor of the Year" at the Law Society Excellence Awards and for the "Women in Law" Award at the British Legal Awards. In 2018, she won the "Highly Commended Solicitor Advocate" Award at the Law Society Excellence Awards, having earlier won the “Best Woman Solicitor Managing a Legal Aid Practice (AWS).” June has made numerous appearances on TV and radio including Newsnight, Breakfast TV, Channel 5's “When Evil came to Rochdale” in 2024, "What Happened Next,” a BBC 4 documentary and “Law Women,” a BBC 1 documentary. She is a regular presenter of legal seminars for the profession, most recently giving talks on parental alienation, vulnerable witnesses, coercive/controlling behaviour and advocacy skills for lawyers. Family June Venters KC is a formidable family law barrister who regularly represents clients in the Family Court, High Court and Appeal Courts and appears in these cases, nationwide. Reported cases include: Public law proceedings in a 25-day composite Final Hearing - November 2023: Represented the mother in the hearing which included a complex fact finding exercise involving serious allegations which were being pursued contemporaneously in the criminal court. June successfully argued that the court should hear oral evidence from the child complainant. June successfully challenged the reliability and admissibility of the evidence from the complainant as well as from the police, whose investigation and questioning of witnesses they submitted had been in serious breach of the relevant guidelines, practice and procedure. The judge ruled that the Local Authority had failed to prove, to the required standard, all the allegations against the mother. RE: A, B and C (Child Contracting Gonorrhoea) [2023] EWFC 211 (26 October 2023): Represented the father in medically complex care proceedings. During the Court of Appeal hearing, June raised the point that the Judge had conflated the conventional finding of an individual on the balance of probabilities with a pool finding which is on the basis of a “real possibility”. Lord Justice Jackson in Re B 2019 paras 46 and 47 had made clear how a court can make a pool finding and that a pool finding is not possible for one. Therefore, if it was accepted that the joint finding of the parents acting together was unfair and couldn’t stand, the court couldn’t simply leave the father in the “pool” as there couldn’t just be one person in a pool finding. The case was re-heard in October. Re: L 2021: Represented the partner of a mother of two children who had been joined to care proceedings as an intervener following the death of the mother’s youngest child, having suffered a catalogue of physical abuse which ultimately resulted in a final devastating injury and death. Care proceedings had been issued because the court needed to determine whether the Mother’s older child should be removed from her permanent care. Judge ruled that the mother’s assertions that he caused all the injuries to the child lacked credibility and that she could not be entirely exonerated and most significantly representations advanced on her behalf that she was the “victim of his control, unable to exercise freewill” were simply not accepted. RE E (CARE PROCEEDINGS: WELFARE DETERMINATION) [2021] EWFC 52/RE E (Care Proceedings: Fact-Finding Hearing) [2020] EWFC 24/RE E (Abduction: Article 13b Deferred Return Order) [2019] EWHC 256 (Fam) (13 February 2019): Represented Russian mother whose mental health capacity fluctuated throughout the proceedings. She was accused of having raped her partner’s minor son whilst they all lived in Spain. She fled Spain to the UK and care proceedings in respect of her and her partner’s daughter were issued. The case was highly unusual because included a finding of fact hearing in relation to the Spanish allegations during which the partner’s minor son gave evidence. The court dismissed those allegations. The court made findings against the father involving very serious, life-threatening domestic abuse inflicted upon the mother. Mother was separately represented in relation to separate extradition proceedings. She was extradited to Spain at the conclusion of these proceedings. Re D: (A child:parental alienation) [2018] EWFC 864 (19th October 2018): Represented a father who successfully proved that the mother of their son was deliberately alienating him from his father. This finding followed the father being criminally investigated for child abuse. The Family Court dismissed all such allegations after a fully contested hearing and which included the son giving evidence. Re R (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 198: Successfully appealed on behalf of a father found to have deliberately killed his wife in a fact-finding hearing in care proceedings when he had been acquitted of murder in the criminal courts on the ground of self-defence. The judgment deals with the extent to which if at all, the Family Court should import criminal principles from the criminal law into family law proceedings. The judgment also deals with Article 6 “right to a fair trial.” The Court of Appeal set aside the lower court’s judgment in its entirety and the matter was ordered to be re-tried by a different High Court Judge. The appeal resulted in the children remaining within the family as opposed to either long-term foster care or adoption that had been the original care plan prior to the appeal. Re P and Q (Children: Care Proceedings: [2015] EWFC 26 (Fam): represented the father in a case in the High Court where the Judge found the mother and her partner had conducted horrific physical and psychological abuse of two young children in the Hampstead area of North London, in which sadism and witchcraft had been a feature of allegations made against not only the father but the children’s school teachers, and many other professionals involved in the children’s lives. The Judge took the highly unusual step of granting permission to the father, after hearing extensive representations by June, for the BBC to interview him. All allegations against the father were dismissed and the children were subsequently placed in his long term care. The case featured in a recent Channel 5 film exploring one of the most infamous cases of 'Satanic Panic.' LBL-v-N 2014-2015: Represented the mother who made allegations of ritual abuse, forced marriage, rape and murder against the Father in care proceedings. The case also raised issues of jurisdiction and disclosure from French Authorities of police and social services investigations. Re N (Placement Order: Alternative option to Adoption) Court of Appeal 2013: Court of Appeal set aside a Placement Order in care proceedings which had been made pursuant to Section 52(1)(b) Adoption and Children Act 2002. This was because the Judge had failed to consider whether the welfare throughout the child’s life required adoption at a time when the court was aware the maternal grandmother wished to care for the child that necessitated further investigation. Re T-v-T EWCA [2010] 1366: Represented the mother and her same sex partner. The Court of Appeal substituted a Shared Residence Order by two gay parents who were in different same sex relationships for a Shared Residence Order by the two gay birth parents and the mother’s same sex partner. Adoption - Re R (Adoption: Disclosure) [1999] 2 FLR 1123: instructed as a solicitor in this case, June represented all of the children. A local authority sought care orders in respect of seven children of a family, and the care plan proposed that four of them should, in the long term, be adopted. Held that making the care orders was correct but as a preamble excluding adoption in respect of the four children – reg 9(1) of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1964) obliged an authority when acting as an adoption agency to provide the adoption panel with 'a written report containing … any information relevant to the proposed placement. The adoption agency was obliged to state the views of the guardian in its written report to the panel. Moreover, reg 10(3) in combination with reg 9(4) entitled the panel to re-quest the adoption agency to provide further information, including the views of the guardian. Other notable cases Re: TB-v-S: Successfully represented a Father in 2020 after the removal of the children from the Mother’s care following a complex Fact Finding Hearing and Final Hearing, during which the mother was found to have made serious false allegations against the father of sexual and physical abuse and in respect of which Mother was found to have alienated the children. The mother then returned the case to court in 2022 making yet further allegations against the father. The case has resulted in all future contact [direct and indirect] by the mother is to be determined by the father and is to be supervised. A barring order against the Mother for 2 years was ordered. Re: B: Determination that mother and her husband had falsified documentation resulting in incorrect registration of child’s surname. This was a case where paternity had been deliberately and wrongfully denied to cause the child to believe her father was the mother’s husband. After a fully contested final hearing in which facts were determined, father, whom June represented achieved a shared lived with order that was bitterly contested as well as a costs order. A Local Authority in NE England: June is representing a local authority in complex care proceedings involving parental alienation. Authority was seeking the removal of a 9-year-old child who had been subjected to proven significant parental alienation. Care proceedings were issued in June 2023 during private law proceedings between the parents, when the local authority became concerned about the negative influence that the domiciliary parent was having. All the professionals, including the expert child psychologist to be finely balanced on the question of removal, considered the case. Following this decision, the parent from whom the removal had been ordered pursued a stay of proceedings and permission to appeal. June successfully opposed this and the child was removed. Crown Court case – sexual offences: Represented a father accused of historical sexual offences against his two daughters, now in their teens. The case has a long history involving family proceedings. The father was clear that he was not guilty of the offences and that they emanated from the mother in her quest to alienate the children from their father. After a fully contested trial, he was acquitted of all offences. Public Law Children June Venters KC specialises in every aspect of care proceedings and has considerable experience in cases involving the most serious of allegations and involving: Death of/catastrophic injuries to a child Physical injuries, often referred to as Non Accidental Injuries [NAI] Genetic disorders including Vitamin D/Ricketts/(Ehlers Danlos Syndrome) [EDS] where symptoms can often mimic suspected child abuse Fabricated Induced Illness (FII) Sexual abuse Ritualized child abuse such as symbolic or group clandestine activities with overtones of religious, magical, or satanic intent Child cruelty/neglect Cases of this nature often involve vulnerable children and vulnerable adults. As a Law Society trainer of vulnerable witnesses, June is experienced in the questioning of such witnesses and does so sensitively, whilst ensuring that every relevant issue is fully and properly explored. Cross over between care proceedings and criminal cases It is not uncommon for cases of this nature to involve the police. Often the person against whom allegations have been made will have been arrested and is either awaiting a charging decision or a criminal trial. June’s criminal experience both as a lawyer and as a Recorder in the Crown Court provides June with the advantage of knowing, in depth, how cases are investigated by the police and prosecuted through the criminal court and which often takes place alongside care proceedings. This knowledge is ever more apparent by the Appeal Court’s acceptance of her representations in the case of Re R (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 198. In that case, and following the unsuccessful attempts to prosecute the father for the alleged murder of the children’s mother, the Court of Appeal agreed with June’s submissions that it was fundamentally wrong for the Family Court judgment to be drawn into an analysis of factual evidence in proceedings relating to the welfare of children based upon criminal law principles and concepts. Private Law Children June has extensive experience in all areas of private law children disputes, including: Parental Responsibility Children arrangements [with whom a child[ren] should live and stay and spend time with] Children re-location [in the UK or abroad] Same Sex Families Prohibited steps eg Child abduction Specific Issues eg Medical treatment/attendance at a specific school June represents clients where often there is an intractable dispute also known as parental alienation or where a parent is often deprived of having or sustaining a significant relationship with their child[ren] and which ultimately is a form of child abuse. In the most serious of cases this can result in long term consequences for a child’s mental health and requires court’s intervention, often assisted by experts instructed during the course of the proceedings. In extreme cases a child or parent will make very serious allegations of child abuse by the other parent which can lead to a police investigation and even a criminal trial. June recognises the immense sensitivity of these cases whilst at the same time recognises the importance of the allegations being properly and swiftly investigated by the family court, often in a fact finding hearing because without such investigation and determination, the allegations remain unresolved and can be resurrected at any time in the future. Whilst a family court determination that the allegations are not proved does not automatically result in any criminal investigation or prosecution coming to an end, it is persuasive authority upon which representations to the police or prosecuting authority can be made. June has succeeded in doing so on a number of cases in which she has been involved and which has resulted in the criminal investigation/charges being dropped. The impact which cases of this nature have on families can be devastating. However, they can also affect a parent’s life outside the family, such as their careers, for example, where a parent is accused of physical or sexual abuse. June regularly represents parents whose careers and or reputations are at risk as a result of cases of this nature. International Private Law June Venters KC is experienced in all areas of international disputes over children, including acting in cases where: Children are/being removed without a parent’s consent from the UK to a country abroad Children are/being removed without a parent’s consent from a country abroad to the UK Contest over parental contact with a child abroad June has represented clients whose children have been removed without parental consent and moved to another country. This can be very distressing for any parent who are at risk of losing contact with their child[ren] both in the short term and potentially in the long term. Cases are particularly complex where children are removed to countries who are not part of the Hague Convention and who do not have a reciprocal arrangement with the country from whom the child has been removed. These cases require swift action to be taken, particularly where the child[ren]’s whereabouts are unknown. Assistance from Government authorities is required in order to trace a child’s whereabouts and expert knowledge of procedures involved is required. For example, June represented children who were abducted by a parent from the UK to Northern Cyprus. June was ordered by a High Court Judge to negotiate their return by personally accompanying the Children’s Guardian to the location where they were staying in Northern Cyprus. The negotiations proved to be successful and both children were returned to the UK. Family Law Arbitration June Venters KC is a children law arbitrator who is qualified through the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators [IFLA] and a panel member of the Chartered institute of Arbitrators [CIArb]. The IFLA and the IFLA Schemes are the result of collaboration between Resolution, the Family Law Bar Association (FLBA), The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) and the Centre for Child and Family Law Reform (CCFLR). The Schemes operate under the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators (IFLA), a not for profit company, the members of which are CIArb, Resolution and the FLBA. CCFLR is also represented on the Board. IFLA is chaired by Lord Falconer. IFLA has developed its arbitration schemes to enable parties to resolve family disputes more quickly, cheaply and in a more flexible and less formal setting than a court room. Mediation June Venters KC is an accredited senior family mediator and is qualified to undertake child consultations within mediation. June is particularly experienced in child consultations within mediation and has the additional qualification to do so. June was invited to participate in the Voice of the Child Advisory Group; the government select committee on mediation and was host to senior government ministers in 2010, including the Legal Aid Minister and the Attorney General who, with the media, visited June at her pro bono clinic in a GP’s surgery in order to observe and discuss with her the mediation process. Details of this can be found on the Ministry of Justice website. In addition and because of June’s recognised ability and experience she was invited to lecture in Latvia on family mediation.

Kara Cann

Overview Kara is a specialist family practitioner, focussing on all aspects of child law. Family Kara Cann has a growing specialism in family law and maintains a busy practice across a broad range of cases. Care and adoption Kara has extensive experience across the full spectrum of public law proceedings, representing parents, intervenors, children through the children’s guardians and local authorities. She is also regularly instructed to represent young people directly who have been deemed competent to instruct their own representatives. Her case load includes proceedings involving: Non-accidental injury, including child death Factitious or induced illness Sexual abuse of both adults and children Chronic neglect Deprivation of liberty and secure accommodation orders Kara has particular expertise in cases involving learning disabled parents (including those involving the instruction of the Official Solicitor), or parties with other learning or cognitive needs. In adoption proceedings, Kara acts for prospective adopters, birth parents and children. She has considerable experience in leave to oppose applications and in non-agency or ‘private’ adoptions, the latter including applications involving concerns as to trafficking and the free giving of birth parent consent. She acts in injunction applications in both the care and adoption arenas, as both applicant and respondent. Private law children Kara’s private law practice encompasses all aspects of child arrangements and other section 8 orders, with a particular emphasis on the representation of child parties to such applications (either through their children’s guardian or directly). Her work includes proceedings involving complex allegations of domestic or other forms of abuse, including those involving alleged alienating behaviour. Many of her cases necessitate the instruction of experts. Kara has additional expertise in wardship proceedings and in applications pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction, including in cases of international abduction. In injunction proceedings, Kara represents both applicants and respondents in applications for both forced marriage and female genital mutilation protection orders. Recent reported cases Re S and T (care - final hearing – s91(14)) [2023] EWFC 194 S and T (care - fact finding - FII - emotional abuse) [2023] EWFC 195 A County Council v A Mother & Ors (Refusal to make a DOLS order) [2021] EWHC 3303 (Fam) Y and Z (Separation of siblings) [2020] EWFC B59 E (care and placement orders) [2019] EWFC B13

Karen Moss

Karen Moss has 18 years' experience as an employment law specialist, instructed on behalf of both respondents and claimants to undertake all aspects of employment and discrimination work. She is Deputy Head of 3PB's employment and discrimination law group. She has been most recently ranked as a Tier 1 Leading Junior in the South Eastern Circuit Employment ‘She is a superstar: a lawyer of the strongest calibre and an excellent advocate with strong cross-examination and client care skills’ and praised for being ‘personable with all clients’ and being able to ‘put witnesses at ease while keeping them focussed on their evidence‘. As a Leading Junior at the London Employment Bar, she is recognised as ‘Superb at processing complex matters and cutting through to the core legal and commercial issues in play, her technical knowledge is extensive and impressive’ (Legal 500 2021). She has been recognised in this year’s Chambers and Partners UK 2021 as a “Widely acclaimed barrister with a tremendous depth of experience handling an array of employment matters including discrimination and whistle-blowing claims… "She's absolutely fantastic with clients and also just gets the legal issues instantly. She is my go-to barrister for everything because she can turn her hand to anything – she's absolutely incredible." "She routinely impresses me with opinions and her advocacy. She is very quick at cutting through the complex factual background to get to a clear legal view.” Her areas of specialist knowledge include all forms of unfair and wrongful dismissal as well as discrimination and harassment relating to all protected characteristics, victimisation, unlawful detriment and whistleblowing claims. She has particular interest in disability, race and sex discrimination, and regularly advises on TUPE, breach of contract, pensions, working time, stress at work claims, unlawful deductions from wages, equal pay claims, post-employment restrictions and injunctive relief. She regularly appears in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and has represented clients in Court of Appeal on employment-related matters. She has been instructed to draft a wide variety of employment pleadings and frequently advises parties pre- and post-action in industrial relations matters generally and tribunal and/or county court and/or High Court litigation. Karen undertakes work via Direct Access for lay clients, on Conditional Fee and Damages Based Agreements and on a pro bono basis in appropriate cases. Additionally she has represented parties in judicial and other mediations regarding employment and wider commercial disputes. She gives lectures, seminars and produces training material on the development of employment law to solicitors, human resources and other professionals. Karen is known as having a down-to-earth and practical approach with clients, combined with being a knowledgeable, skilful and tenacious advocate. Publications and seminars Post Pnaiser Protection - ((1st September 2017) NLJ 13) an update on discrimination arising from disability after Pnaiser v NHS England and another, published by the New Law Journal 'EAT Guidance in Pnaiser and Hampshire v Wyatt - An update on knowledge and compensation in disability discrimination cases (from the 'Solent Employment Law Training Day')' ELA online resource 10th February 2017 'Keeping an eye on the Information' (23rd July 2004) 154 NLJ 11 Employment and Discrimination Karen is an employment law specialist with 18 years of experience. She has been most recently ranked as a Tier 1 Leading Junior in the South Eastern Circuit Employment ‘She is a superstar: a lawyer of the strongest calibre and an excellent advocate with strong cross-examination and client care skills’ and praised for being ‘personable with all clients’ and being able to ‘put witnesses at ease while keeping them focussed on their evidence‘. As a Leading Junior at the London Employment Bar, she is recognised as ‘Superb at processing complex matters and cutting through to the core legal and commercial issues in play, her technical knowledge is extensive and impressive’ (Legal 500 2021). She has been recognised in this year’s Chambers and Partners UK 2021 as a “Widely acclaimed barrister with a tremendous depth of experience handling an array of employment matters including discrimination and whistle-blowing claims… "She's absolutely fantastic with clients and also just gets the legal issues instantly. She is my go-to barrister for everything because she can turn her hand to anything – she's absolutely incredible." "She routinely impresses me with opinions and her advocacy. She is very quick at cutting through the complex factual background to get to a clear legal view.” Employment tribunal work has included both Claimant and Respondent work relating to unfair dismissal (substantive and procedural, constructive or actual), wrongful dismissal, discrimination (sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, religion and belief; direct and indirect), harassment, victimisation, stress at work claims, unlawful detriment claims, equal pay claims, TUPE, breach of contract, PIDA/whistleblowing claims, working time and unlawful deductions from wages. She has a particular interest in disability discrimination claims, including failure to make reasonable adjustments, and race and sex discrimination claims. She is also regularly instructed to appear or to advise in matters of employment-related insolvency and judicial or other employment mediations. She has been instructed to draft a wide variety of employment pleadings and frequently advises parties pre- and post-action in industrial relations matters generally and tribunal and/or county court and/or High Court litigation, including post-termination restrictions and injunctive proceedings. She regularly appears in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and has appeared in the Court of Appeal on employment matters. Karen undertakes work via Direct Access for lay clients, on Conditional Fee and Damages Based Agreements and on a pro bono basis in appropriate cases. Additionally she has represented parties in judicial and other mediations regarding employment and wider commercial disputes. She gives lectures, seminars and produces training material on the development of employment law to solicitors, human resources and other professionals. Reported and interesting appellate cases: Ahmed v Cardinal Hume Academies UKEAT/0096/18 29th March 2019 Successfully defended an appeal regarding disability harassment and direct discrimination because of disability. Mr Justice Choudhury (P) found that the tribunal had been correct to find that if it was not reasonable for the conduct to be regarded as violating the Claimant’s dignity or creating an adverse environment for him, then it should not be found to have done so. Additionally, the tribunal had concluded that the Appellant had been suspended because of his difficulties with handwriting. That was a finding that treatment was because of the adverse effect of an impairment or of something arising from disability; it was not a finding that the treatment was because of the disability – whether dyspraxia or some other unspecified physical or mental impairment - itself. Baldeh v Churches Housing Association of Dudley & District Ltd UKEAT/0290/18/JOJ 11th March 2019 HHJ Shanks determined that where the original decision to dismiss was for disability-related reasons, without knowledge of the disability, but the appeal decision, upholding the dismissal was for the same reasons, with the requisite knowledge of a disability, that was actionable by an employee claiming to have been dismissed because of something arising in consequence of her disability. The ET had failed to apply the correct thresholds for liability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 and so the matter was remitted to a fresh tribunal Philcox v CGDM Ltd TA Andrew Wilson & Co A2/2016/2804 May 2017 Representing the successful Respondent in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Underhill set aside the permission to appeal granted last year by Lord Justice Elias in this factually complex case involving multiple allegations of sex discrimination and unfair dismissal (EAT in February 2017 EAT/0819/16/DA). Hampshire County Council v Wyatt UKEAT/0013/16/DA October 2016 Represented the successful Respondent before the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Mrs Justice Simler DBE who gave invaluable guidance in relation to the divisibility of injuries and proportionate reduction of ITF and personal injury awards and on the use of medical evidence in employment tribunals for personal injury claims. Pnaiser v NHS England and Coventry City Council [2016] IRLR 170 November 2015 Represented the successful Appellant in showing that a prospective employer could be liable for discrimination arising in consequence of a disability, by relying on a reference which itself was discriminatory, even if the prospective employer did not know of the link between negative reference and the disability. The decision of the Tribunal overturned and a decision upholding her claims for disability discrimination was substituted. Scotthorne v Four Seasons Conservatories (UK) Limited UKEAT/0178/10/ZT Whether the Tribunal was correct not to order disclosure of documented advice from “Employment Consultants” or HR professionals who were not legally qualified on the grounds of either legal advice privilege or litigation privilege and the application of New Victoria Hospital v Ryan [1993] IRLR 202 and Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No.6) [2005] 1 AC 610. Snows Motor Group Ltd v Palmerino UKEAT/1512/08DM Whether the Tribunal had “slipped into the substitution mindset” following the Court of Appeal decision in London Ambulance v Small and the applicability of the statutory disciplinary procedures where detailed evidence had not been provided until the Step 2 hearing. Lloyd-Briden v Worthing College [2007] 3 CMLR 27, EAT The applicability and effect of the ECJ decision in Mangold on the age discrimination provisions before the implementation date in the UK. London Borough of Camden v Price-Job UKEAT/0507/06/DM [2007] All ER (D) 259 (Dec) Question of whether the Tribunal correctly considered all relevant circumstances of Respondent to a DDA claim, and whether they considered the effect of s.3A(6) appropriately. Additionally the application of the law in relation to whether an appropriate assessment of an employee is a necessary pre-condition to reasonable adjustments. Roberts v Valleyrose Ltd T/A Fernbank Nursing Home UKEAT/03944/06/D [2007] All ER (D) 163 (Aug) Question of whether the Tribunal was biased against the Appellant and whether the Appellant had had a fair opportunity to refute an allegation of bad faith in a PIDA claim. Investigations Karen Moss has extensive experience of advising investigators in a number of different sectors, including healthcare, the legal profession, including partnership disputes, communications, manufacturing and education. The investigations with which she has been involved have ranged from straight-forward disciplinaries and grievances, to factually and legally complex, wide-ranging high-stakes cases involving C-suite executives, whistleblowing and discrimination allegations. She has particular expertise in cases involving disabilities or suspected disabilities, especially those involving mental health. Her skills are in distilling voluminous information into the salient points, being efficient, incisive and comprehensive. Her down-to-earth, practical nature makes her easy to work with. Injunctions Karen Moss is frequently instructed on High Court applications for interim injunctions concerning an employee’s breach of express and implied terms during and after their employment, including breach of fiduciary duty and directors’ duties, breach of confidentiality, protection of Databases and Trade Secrets, enforcement of restrictive covenants and third party liability. Successful applications have included interim and final injunctions, springboard relief, orders for delivery up and destruction, and substantial damages. She has advised claimants and defendants, including C-suite executives, on negotiating appropriate undertakings, enforceability and severability of covenants, team moves and the use of garden leave, in addition to providing practical tactical guidance both before and after a claim is issued.

Kevin Pettican

Kevin is a senior commercial barrister with a strong practice focused on commercial litigation and arbitration, personal and corporate insolvency, banking and finance, and property litigation. He is a seasoned trial lawyer with experience of appearing in courts at all levels, up to and including the UK Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as well as arbitral tribunals both in London and internationally. Kevin joined 3PB from a London commercial chambers in September 2024. He has relocated to work from 3PB's Birmingham office, whilst continuing to develop his London-based practice. Before practicing at the independent Bar, Kevin spent two years as an employed barrister in the commercial litigation team of a boutique City of London law firm, followed by five years working within the international arbitration team of US-based law firm WilmerHale. This background means that Kevin understands the expectations of commercial clients in the litigation process and the need for counsel to work as part of an effective team with instructing solicitors to ensure that those expectations are met or exceeded. Kevin prides himself on his ability to devise creative and sometimes novel strategies for overcoming apparently insurmountable difficulties in a case. This is reflected in the fact that clients often come to Kevin at a late stage in the litigation process having become dissatisfied with their previous representatives. In such cases Kevin has often been able to turn things around at trial or on appeal or, where this is not possible, at least get the client to a position where a favourable settlement can be negotiated. Business Financing Kevin is frequently instructed in litigation with banks and financial institutions, especially disputes arising from secured lending and the provision of guarantees. In recent years, Kevin has been instructed in several cases involving disputes as to the terms and/or enforceability of interest rate swap transactions involving the ISDA Master Agreement. Most recently, in Deutsche Bank AG London v Comune di Busto Arsizio [2021] EWHC 2706 (Comm) Kevin was instructed (with Paul Downes KC) by an Italian local authority in Commercial Court litigation concerning the enforceability of two interest rate swaps. This was the first case in which the Commercial Court considered the effect of the decision of the Joint Divisions of the Italian Supreme Court in the Cattolica case (Case No. 8770/20220). Kevin acted (with Romie Tager KC) for the successful appellants in Szepietowski v The National Crime Agency [2013] UKSC 65; [2014] 1 AC 338, which is the leading case on the equitable doctrine of marshalling. Whilst the marshalling of charges is something that normally takes place in the context of secured lending, the case raised complex issues arising from a settlement agreement between Kevin’s clients and the National Crime Agency. Insolvency an Bankruptcy Insolvency & restructuring Kevin Pettican is regularly instructed in disputes arising in the personal and corporate insolvency context. His experience includes: Applications to set aside statutory demands Applications to restrain the presentation/advertisement of winding up petitions Contested bankruptcy and winding up petitions Matters arising during the insolvency process, including resisting applications by office holders to conduct private examinations under s236 and s366 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as well as representing individuals in such examinations Issues concerning the appointment of administrators and their powers Transaction avoidance claims by office holders Claims by trustees in bankruptcy Claims by office holders against former directors for fraudulent and/or wrongful trading and misfeasance Directors disqualification proceedings Reported cases Re: JD Group Ltd [2023]: Acting for a former director in a substantial claim by a liquidator alleging fraudulent trading and misfeasance in the context of an alleged MTIC fraud. Hira v Kanzai Securities Ltd [2017] EWHC 2213 (Ch): Successful defence of an appeal against an order refusing to set aside a statutory demand where the debtor was arguing that his liability under the personal guarantee did not give rise to a liquidated debt. The Law Society v Beller [2014] EWHC 3923 (Ch); [2014] BPIR 1480: Successful defence of a claim by the Law Society to recover a fund representing the work in progress of a solicitor’s former practice. The case raised complex issues concerning the relationship between an IVA entered by the former solicitor and the statutory trust that arose following the Law Society’s intervention in his practice. Re: Legal & Equitable Securities plc. (in Liquidation) [2012] EWHC 910 (Ch); (2012) 109 (24) L.S.G 22: A successful challenge to a liquidator’s refusal to admit the applicant as a contingent creditor based on a contractual indemnity. The case is significant in terms of the meaning of a contingent liability for the purposes of Rule 13.12 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. Re: RC Realisations (2011) Ltd: Acting for an Italian company in proceedings arising from the decision of the administrators of RC Realisations to refuse to admit a substantial claim. The case (which settled) concerned the impact of the EU sanctions regime against Iran on two international trade agreements. Beller v Valentine [2011] EWHC 2397; [2012] BPIR 15: Acting for a former solicitor in a claim for outstanding fees against a liquidator in the context of a third-party funding arrangement. The case is significant in terms of its consideration of the potential liability of an office holder who instructs solicitors in reliance on third party funding. Civil fraud & asset recovery Kevin is frequently instructed in commercial cases in which fraud is alleged or which involve the recovery of assets. Reported cases Re: JD Group Ltd [2023]: Acting for a former director in a substantial claim by a liquidator alleging fraudulent trading and misfeasance in the context of an alleged MTIC fraud. Winter v Hockley Mint Ltd [2019] 1 WLR 1617: The litigation involved claims of deceit and conspiracy in the context of office equipment leases. Kevin acted for the successful appellant and the decision of the Court of Appeal is a leading authority on the circumstances in which a principal is vicariously liable for the fraud of his agent. Szepietowski v The National Crime Agency [2014] 1 AC 338: A successful appeal to the Supreme Court (together with Romie Tager KC) in what is now the leading case on the equitable doctrine of marshalling. The case raised complex issues arising from a settlement of asset recovery proceedings that was originally brought against Kevin’s client by the National Crime Agency. Kinch v Rosling & Ors [2019] EWHC 286: Successful claim on behalf of Leicestershire businessman Gilbert Kinch who had been the victim of an advanced fee fraud in connection with a failed bid to acquire Leicester City Football Club. Al Baho & Ors v Meerza [2011] EWHC 2984: Acting for a Kuwaiti national, a member of the ruling family of Kuwait and a former English solicitor in litigation arising from the sale of a London property in which it was alleged that the purchaser had paid a bribe and a secret commission had been received. The dispute gave rise to proceedings in the Chancery Division, the Queen’s Bench Division (for defamation), as well as proceedings in Kuwait. Commercial Kevin Pettican is a commercial litigator with 30 years of experience in litigating and arbitrating business disputes before courts at all levels up to and including the Supreme Court, and before arbitral tribunals both in the UK and internationally. Whilst Kevin particularly enjoys preparing for and conducting trials, he is a versatile advocate who is equally at home in the applications court, or argument a novel point of law before the Court of Appeal. In all his cases, Kevin seeks to adopt a persuasive and direct approach to advocacy, based on intensive prior preparation. Reported cases Deutsche Bank AG London v Comune di Busto Arsizio [2021] EWHC 2706 (Comm): Kevin was instructed (together with Paul Downes KC) by an Italian local authority in Commercial Court litigation concerning the enforceability of two interest rate swaps. This was the first case in which the English Commercial Court considered the effect of the decision of the Joint Divisions of the Italian Supreme Court in the Cattolica case (Case No. 8770/20220). NaturaStudios Ltd v The New York Laser Clinic Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 421: This was a dispute concerning the supply of laser equipment to the claimant. Kevin successfully appealed against a decision by the Deputy High Court Judge that permitted the claimant to substantially change its case shortly before trial. Kevin was able to secure from the Court of Appeal a substantial adjournment of the trial and, thereafter, appropriate case management directions. Winter v Hockley Mint Ltd [2019] 1 WLR 1617: Kevin acted for an office equipment supplier in a substantial trial in the Chancery Division involving allegations of deceit and conspiracy in the context of office equipment leasing agreements. The allegations of wrongdoing against Kevin’s client were dismissed at trial and a finding by the trial judge that Kevin’s client was vicariously liable for the actions of one of the other defendants was set aside by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal’s decision in this case is a leading authority on the circumstances in which a principal will be liable for the fraud of his agent in a commercial context. Dondore Incorporated v Fetaimia [2018] EWHC 1832 (Ch): This was a dispute over whether an oral agreement had been made (and performed) for the sale and purchase of the shares in a BVI company that owned a £2.5 million flat in Knightsbridge. Following a 5-day trial in the Chancery Division, the court found that Kevin’s client had entered into an oral agreement with the claimant to purchase the shares in the BVI company that owned the flat, and that the purchase price had been paid to an African company controlled by the claimant. The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd v Al-Geabury [2015] EWHC 2294: Acting for the defendant in litigation with the Ritz Club arising from multi-million-pound gambling losses. The case gave rise to complex issues concerning the duties owed by a casino to a self-excluded customer under the Gambling Act 2005. Szepietowski v The National Crime Agency [2014] 1 AC 338: A successful appeal to the Supreme Court (together with Romie Tager KC) in what is now the leading case on the equitable doctrine of marshalling. The case also raised complex issues of construction arising from a settlement agreement entered between Kevin’s client and the National Crime Agency. Trident Australasia Pty Ltd v Versabuild LLC [2013] EWHC 4838: Security for costs in circumstances where there were no publicly available financial statements relating to the claimant. The issue arose in the context of a dispute between the partners to an international joint venture. Street v Larkins [2013] EWHC 1408: A dispute between the members of an alleged family partnership arising from the sale and purchase of property in London over a number of years. Re Giambrone LLP: Acting for various claimants in proceedings for professional negligence against a firm of Registered European Lawyers arising from losses suffered in relation to the purchase of off-plan holiday homes in Calabria, including making one of the first successful applications for summary judgment. Company/ Partnership law and Disputes Kevin Pettican is often instructed in disputes that arise in a company law context or which arise between partners (or the members of LLPs). Most commonly, these claims involve disputes between shareholders in which relief is sought pursuant to s994 of the Companies 2006, or in which an order is sought for the winding up of the company on the just an equitable ground. However, Kevin has been involved in a number of claims where disputes have arisen between partners (including disputes as to whether a partnership exists at all) or between members of an LLP. For example, Street v Larkins [2013] EWHC 1408 concerned a dispute as to whether a partnership had come into being because of various property dealings undertaken by various family members, and Simmons Gainsford LLP v Shah [2008] EWHC 2554 concerned a dispute between a firm of accountants and a former member of the LLP concerning entitlement to the proceeds of a life insurance policy. Property and Estates Real property disputes form a significant part of Kevin’s practice. Kevin has experience in the following areas: Commercial leases, especially contested lease renewals, forfeiture, arrears of rent and dilapidations claims Residential leases, especially disputes concerning the enforcement of covenants in long leaseholds Claims for specific performance of agreements for the sale and purchase of land Title disputes, including claims based on adverse possession Disputes between co-owners Boundary/neighbour disputes Mortgages and charges Reported cases Malik v Malik: a long-running family dispute concerning the disputed ownership of a valuable leasehold flat in Knightsbridge giving rise to some complex issues concerning the application of the law of adverse possession to leasehold property. Dondore Incorporated v Fetaimia [2018] EWHC 1832 (Ch): Successful defence of a possession claim tried over 5 days in the Chancery Division concerning the ultimate beneficial ownership of a £2.5 million flat in Knightsbridge. The court found that Kevin’s client had entered into an oral agreement with the claimant to purchase the shares in a BVI company that owned the flat, and that the purchase price had been paid to an African company controlled by the claimant. Ashley Gardens Freeholds Ltd v Landor (2017) Central London County Court: Successful claim for forfeiture of a long residential lease on the grounds that, by using the flat to operate a B&B business, the leaseholder was in breach of a user covenant prohibiting the use of the flat “for any purpose whatsoever other than as a private residential flat in one occupation”. The leaseholder was granted relief on terms that she sold the flat within six months of the judgment to avoid the freeholder obtaining a windfall at her expense. The case received substantial press attention. King v Robertson [2014] UKPC 34: An appeal to the Privy Council from the courts of St Vincent and the Grenadines concerning adverse possession of land.

Lachlan Wilson

Overview Lachlan is experienced in all areas of education, employment, and professional disciplinary law. He advises and represents individuals, employers, local authorities, schools, charities, and regulatory bodies. Lachlan has particular experience in cases of discrimination (race, religion, sex, and disability), school admissions and exclusions, special educational needs, educational negligence, whistle-blowing, and fitness to practice hearings before professional regulators and University disciplinary and conduct panels. The common theme to all Lachlan’s practice areas is human behaviour and conduct which requires understanding and scrutiny, whether it is exhibited by a child requiring specialist SEN provision; an individual before disciplinary proceedings, or an employer or professional carrying out their duties towards organisations and individuals. Lachlan is also a trained mediator. Education Lachlan’s public and administrative law practice is centred on the field of education and he appears in Chambers and Partners for this field. He taught for a number of years before qualifying as a lawyer and now conducts cases involving a wide range of education law issues at all levels from the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal to the Court of Appeal. Lachlan advises and represents children, parents, school proprietors and governing bodies, local education authorities, voluntary organisations and charitable trusts, further and higher education institutions, students, and universities, on the full range of education disputes, including: School admissions - policies and appeals (including nursery and infant class admissions) School exclusions - policies and appeals, and other pupil disciplinary matters School attendance and registration of pupils Discrimination (including allegations of disability discrimination before the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, and Independent Appeal Panel in cases of permanent exclusion) Special Educational Needs (including hearings before, and appeals from, the SENDIST) Local Government Ombudsman (complaints to, and challenges against decisions of) Negligence in the field of Education Employment in Education, and other education contracts Charitable Trusts Further and Higher Education – admissions, attendance, disciplinary issues Universities - admissions, academic and disciplinary disputes, including fitness to practice panels. Significant cases R v Wakefield MDC ex p G ( LTL 30/1/98 : Times, February 10, 1998) R v Wakefield LEA ex p K (LTL 24/6/99) R v Oxfordshire CC Exclusions Appeal Panel, ex p P [2001] ELR 631 R v S Gloucestershire Education Appeals Committee, ex p B [2001] ELR 53 R (ota) Wakefield MDC v E and SENT (2002) ELR 2003 Olchfa Comprehensive School Governors v (1) IE & EE (2) Helen Rimington (Chair Of Special Educational Needs & Disability Tribunal) [2006] EWHC 1468 (Admin) Centrepoint Soho Ltd v Ms S Omaboe [2017] UKEAT/0129/17/BA East Sussex County Council v JC [2018] UKUT 81 (AAC) The Harpur Trust v Brazel [2019] EWCA Civ 1402 Lachlan regularly advises both informally, and in formal presentations, on latest developments in Education Law. Employment and discrimination Lachlan is regularly and frequently called upon to advise and represent Claimants and Respondents in disputes before employment tribunals throughout the country, and before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He was recently counsel for music teacher Mrs Lesley Brazel in her claims before the Court of Appeal and UK Supreme Court in the leading holiday pay case of The Harpur Trust v Brazel [2019] EWCA Civ 1402/The Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21, regarding the statutory paid holiday entitlement of “part-year” workers on permanent contracts. He specialises in areas of discrimination and public interest disclosure, but his extensive experience in employment litigation includes: Unfair Dismissal claims (substantive and procedural, constructive, automatic) Wrongful dismissal claims Discrimination claims (disability, sex, sexual orientation, race, religious beliefs, gender reassignment) Maternity rights Equal Pay claims Holiday pay and rights for part-year or part-time workers Public Interest Disclosure claims (whistle-blowing) Redundancy payment claims (statutory and contractual) National Minimum Wage and Working Time disputes Transfer-of-Undertakings (TUPE) disputes Unlawful wage deduction claims Employment Tribunal jurisdiction and procedural disputes High Court and County Court litigation, including: - contractual bonus and share issues - restrictive covenants - employers’ references - vicarious liability for professional negligence - fiduciary obligations of senior employees and directors. In addition, Lachlan has advised extensively on the effective drafting of: Contracts of employment, including restrictive covenant clauses Confidentiality clauses Disciplinary and grievance procedures Compromise agreements. As a trained mediator, Lachlan is also frequently called upon to act as counsel in mediations concerning employment disputes. Recent cases Perkin v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust [2005] EWCA Civ 1174 Akhavan-Moossavi v Association of London Government (2005) UKEAT/0501/04 Vasquez-Guirado v Wigmore (2005) UKEAT/0033/05 Olchfa Comprehensive School Governors v (1) IE & EE (2) Helen Rimington (Chair Of Special Educational Needs & Disability Tribunal) [2006] EWHC 1468 (Admin) Centrepoint Soho Ltd v Ms S Omaboe [2017] UKEAT/0129/17/BA East Sussex County Council v JC [2018] UKUT 81 (AAC) The Harpur Trust v Brazel [2019] EWCA Civ 1402/The Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21 Lachlan is pleased to advise professional clients both informally, and in formal presentations, on latest developments in employment law. Further details can be obtained from the specialist clerk to the Employment Group. Mediation Lachlan is an Accredited Mediator. Public and Regulatory Lachlan Wilson's public and administrative law practice is focused in the field of education law disputes. He taught for a number of years before qualifying as a lawyer and now conducts cases involving a wide range of education law issues at all levels from the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal to the Court of Appeal. This includes dealing with teachers' disciplinary and regulatory cases.

Marc Brittain

Overview Marc is an experienced commercial and chancery practitioner, and is Head of 3PB's Commercial team. His broad litigation and advisory work covers most areas of the law normally litigated in the Chancery and Queens Bench Division, including: Company law and partnership Shareholder disputes Corporate and personal insolvency Breach of Contract Furthermore, Marc has developed a practice acting for lenders and in particular short-term bridging lenders and mortgage/civil fraud related disputes. He has also recently acted for Defendants in a number of complicated ‘land banking’ claims brought in the Chancery Division by the Financial Services Authority. Marc has also been a High Court Examiner for the purpose of litigation in the United States of America and has appeared in the Privy Council on appeal from the New Zealand Court of Appeal as well as advising in the Isle of Man on a case involving British litigants and Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise. Commercial Marc’s practice covers a broad range of chancery and commercial litigation and he has substantial experience in both litigation and advisory work. In particular, Marc’s practice covers high value contractual disputes, insolvency & bankruptcy and company related disputes with an emphasis on partnership and shareholder disputes, fraudulent/wrongful trading and breach of director’s duties. Marc has developed a particular expertise in acting for lenders and in particular short-term bridging lenders and mortgage/civil fraud related disputes. He has also recently acted for defendants in a number of complicated ‘land banking’ claims brought in the Chancery Division by the Financial Services Authority. Marc has also been a High Court Examiner for the purpose of litigation in the United States of America and has appeared in the Privy Council on appeal from the New Zealand Court of Appeal as well as advising in the Isle of Man on a case involving British litigants and Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise. Current Work Acting in a number of substantial linked cases proceeding in the High Court involving claims in which the claimants are suing for the return of money allegedly paid to the defendant for the purchase of property in Dubai, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation by D. A substantial case proceeding in the High Court in which C, a Kuwaiti, is claiming a right to ‘trace’ money into a property purchased by D in this jurisdiction. A case proceeding in the Chancery Division of the High Court involving the use of alleged ‘confidential information’ obtained from the husband by the wife in which the husband is seeking to injunct the wife from using the material in family proceedings. Recent Cases County Leasing Asset Management Ltd & 5 ors v Mark Glenn Hawkes [2015] CA Wingfield Financial Heritage v Ikeji [2015] High Court QBD Acting for the claimant lender in several hearings before Chancery judges and QB Masters in a claim in which issues of ‘default penalty interest’ arose Elliott Green (as liquidator of Ice Commercial Developments Ltd) v Singh [2014] ChD (Manchester District Registry) Acting on behalf of a former director of the company and successfully resisting a claim for damages for wrongful trading Foreprime Properties Limited v Cheval Bridging Finance [2014] ChD Successfully representing the defendant in a claim where the claimant alleged sale by the defendant mortgagee in possession of property at an undervalue Martha Khan v Samir Bashir [2013] EWHC 957 QB Freezing order/striking out claim Grunwick v Dhanak & Perera [2012] EWCA Civ 1250 Acting for one of the defendants (D) in a trial that lasted over 2 weeks and then in the Court of Appeal. P was employed by G in their silver recovery department. He sold silver flakes to D, D did not pay and P sued D. G found out about the claim and joined into the claim, alleging that the silver flakes had been stolen from them by P. D successfully raised the defence of ‘illegality’ to resist P’s claim. G succeeded against P but did not pursue D. Notable Cases County Leasing Asset Management Ltd & 5 ors v Mark Glenn Hawkes [2015] EWCA Civ 1251 - Acting for the successful appellants in this case, in which the Court of Appeal has provided guidance on the principles applicable to the Court’s discretion, when making an order for the restoration of a dissolved company, to order that the period of dissolution should not count for limitation purposes: aka a ‘limitation direction’. Wingfield Financial Heritage v Ikeji [2015] High Court QBD - Acting for the claimant lender in several hearings before Chancery judges and QB Masters in a claim in which issues of ‘default penalty interest’ arose. Elliott Green (as liquidator of Ice Commercial Developments Ltd) v Singh [2014] ChD (Manchester District Registry) - Acting on behalf of a former director of the company and successfully resisting a claim for damages for wrongful trading. Foreprime Properties Limited v Cheval Bridging Finance [2014] ChD - Successfully representing the defendant in a claim where the claimant alleged sale by the defendant mortgagee in possession of property at an undervalue. Martha Khan v Samir Bashir [2013] EWHC 957 QB - Freezing order/striking out claim. Grunwick v Dhanak & Perera [2012] EWCA Civ 1250 - Acting for one of the defendants (D) in a trial that lasted over 2 weeks and then in the Court of Appeal. P was employed by G in their silver recovery department. He sold silver flakes to D, D did not pay and P sued D. G found out about the claim and joined into the claim, alleging that the silver flakes had been stolen from them by P. D successfully raised the defence of ‘illegality’ to resist P’s claim. G succeeded against P but did not pursue D. Property and Estates Marc Brittain has a longstanding practice in advising and representing clients in court in property disputes, notably in ‘mortgage’ issues, especially in relation to sub-prime lenders. His current caseload includes : a claim on behalf of a client who purchased a property, or at least he thought he did, only to find that the ‘seller’ was a fraudster – the issues are the same as in the fairly recent case of Dreamvar; a defendant in a "right of light" case – in which we have experts reports with differing modules and other complications; a case for a defendant property developer who charged his portfolio to a ‘bridger’, and where the ‘bridger’ has alleged a breach of the legal charge leading to receivers being appointed. Marc is in the process of applying for injunctive relief on the basis that although one of the properties was let out to a ‘relative’ within the meaning of the legal charge, the borrower was his client’s company and a company cannot have ‘relatives’ within the meaning of the prohibition in the legal charge; a claim on behalf of another developer who purchased a property in a development in Manchester with a car parking space that is too small to fit a car into, thereby substantially reducing the value of the property; a dispute relating to service charges and rent arrears in relation to a property purchased at auction – construction of the lease and auction particulars; and a recent liability trial in which the landlord client had served a s.146 notice and then evicted the tenant. The validity of a s.146 notice and thereafter a quantum trial in which various issues were argued. Construction of the lease, election re mesne profits/lost business profits, how mesne profits were to be calculated (by reference to the rent paid under the lease or by reference to the rent at which the landlord was now advertising the premises), exemplary damages were all argued in the case. He is variously instructed by both solicitors and on a direct access basis, by developers, commercial tenants and property professionals.

Mark Green

Overview Mark Green is an employment law specialist and appears frequently for both claimants and respondents, dealing with claims in the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, Court of Appeal, High Court and County Court. He is consistently ranked in the Legal 500 and Chambers UK with clients praising him as a ‘skilled and highly competent barrister’, noting his ‘huge intellect’, ‘excellent tactical mind’ and 'quiet and unassuming confidence' that makes lay clients ‘feel at ease as soon as they meet him’ in addition to his 'excellent, pragmatic advice’. Mark also has a media presence, following the high profile age discrimination case of Jolly v Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust 3324869/2017, and several appearances on television, radio and in national newspapers, including discussing the case on the This Morning sofa. Click here to watch the interview. He also works on litigation with a national security dimension, and is an expert on appeals to SVAP (Security Vetting Appeals Panel). Reflecting his niche practice in the overlap between employment law and national security law, he has co-authored two chapters entitled 'Employment Law and National Security' and ‘National Security Vetting' in the ‘National Security: Law, Practice, and Procedure’ (OUP, 2021). The second edition is forthcoming. Before coming to the Bar, Mark taught in schools both in the Midlands and in Rome. He also worked as an intern for the World Health Organisation, Geneva in the field of Bioethics. He was The Guardian's Young Travel Journalist of the Year in 2001. He was appointed to the Attorney General’s ‘A’ Panel in 2023 having been appointed to the ‘B’ Panel in 2019, and regularly represents a number of government departments. Languages spoken French (Fluent) German (Working) Hebrew (Basic) Italian (Fluent) Japanese (Basic) Spanish (Working) Mark is an Accredited Mediation Advocate. Employment and Discrimination Mark Green has over 16 years’ experience as an employment law specialist. His busy practice has covered a wide range of cases, representing both Claimant and Respondent, at the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal in addition to the High Court and County Court. He is consistently ranked in the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners with clients praising him as a ‘skilled and highly competent barrister’, noting his ‘huge intellect’, ‘excellent tactical mind’ and 'quiet and unassuming confidence' that makes lay clients ‘feel at ease as soon as they meet him’ in addition to his 'excellent, pragmatic advice’. He is also regularly instructed to draft pleadings, advise on prospects and witness statements and deal with mediation proceedings. Mark also has a media presence, following the high profile age discrimination case of Jolly v Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust 3324869/2017, and several appearances on television, radio and in national newspapers, including discussing the case on the This Morning sofa. Click here to watch the interview. In the EAT, issues have covered the definition of disability, limitation, protected disclosures, unlawful deductions from wages, medical evidence, pecuniary loss arising from discrimination, costs awards, satisfactory reasoning, victimisation and whole career loss of earnings. Mark also advises on and acts in restrictive covenant matters and directors’ disqualification hearings, in addition to conducting internal appeals from disciplinary procedures. He has appeared for a number of Italian clients, and is happy to deal with documentation and conduct conferences in both French and Italian. As a member of the Attorney General’s panel of barristers, Mark appears frequently for numerous Government departments on both standard employment matters and those with an element of national security, an area in which has developed a niche practice, and has written on. He is also appointed to the barrister panel of ELAAS (the Employment Lawyers Appeals Advice Scheme), providing pro bono advice and representation for EAT hearings. Mark has also been invited to provide training on discrimination law on behalf of the Employment Lawyers’ Association, along with Kiran Daurka of Leigh Day for a number of years. Out of tribunal, Mark has developed a reputation as an advocate with an excellent 'bedside manner', taking the time to listen to his clients carefully and explain matters clearly and concisely. Recent tribunal issues have included: Disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, race and religious discrimination Discrimination on the basis of marital status and pregnancy Restructuring processes wrongly called redundancy situations Constructive unfair dismissal Employee status of former company directors Public interest disclosures relating to health and safety Gross misconduct Capability procedures, particularly with regard to long term sickness Breach of contract Victimisation/harassment Waiver of privilege in Employment Tribunal proceedings Final salary pension loss Post termination discrimination The interrelationship between parallel criminal and employment proceedings Selected reported cases: Cox v Adecco and ors [2021] ICR 1307, EAT: This appeal is regularly cited as providing useful guidelines for the strike out of claims, particularly with regard to litigants in person. It highlighted the need to analyse the issues carefully before making any decision on strike out. Bath Hill Court (Bournemouth) Management Company Ltd v Coletta [2019] EWCA Civ 1707: This long-running case involved three appeals to the EAT which Mark dealt with as sole counsel, and a fourth to the Court of Appeal, in which he was led by Tim Brennan QC.  The Court of Appeal confirmed that there is no backstop on claims for unlawful deductions from wages in the Employment Tribunal. The six year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980 did not apply to such claims. This meant that because Mr Coletta had entered his claim before July 2015, when the statutory backstop of two years was introduced under the 2014 Deductions from Wages (Limitation) Regulations, he could claim 15 years of arrears for a failure to pay the full national minimum wage. Omar Kalif v Evolve Hospitality Limited UKEAT/0313/19/LA: The Claimant appealed on the basis that the ET had failed to consider the full extent of a PCP (regarding the handling of pork) in a claim for indirect religious discrimination. Mark, for the Respondent, successfully argued that even if there had been an error of law (which the EAT agreed was not made out), the outcome would not have been any different, as there was no requirement for him, as a matter of fact, to handle pork products. Jafri v Lincoln College [2014] IRLR 544 applied. Humankind Charity (formerly Blenheim CDP) v Gittens UKEAT/0086/18/BA: Mark Green successfully represented the Appellant, Humankind Charity. Ms Gittens was dismissed for misconduct, following an allegation of dishonesty. The Employment Tribunal found that the Respondent had fairly dismissed her but went on to find that she had been wrongfully dismissed, as she had no duty to disclose her own misconduct and therefore had not fundamentally breached her own contract. The Tribunal agreed with Mark that the case of Ranson –v- Customer Systems Plc [2012] EWCA 841 had been misapplied. Mark appeared in two EAT cases which were assessed to have little reasonable prospect of success and so were filtered to a 3(10) preliminary hearing. In both cases, he persuaded the President of the EAT to allow the matters through to final hearings, and went on to succeed in both: In Brighton v Tesco UKEAT/0165/15/DM, the Respondent had dismissed the Claimant because of aggression he alleged was due to an epileptic fit. The Respondent did not believe him. Mark argued successfully that it was both perverse and non-Meek compliant for Tesco to disregard the medical evidence in the way it did, even if it was because it did not find the Claimant a credible historian.  The EAT found that whilst Tribunals are not bound by medical evidence, they should give proper respect to it and provide sufficient reasons for disregarding it. In Ndebele v Kasterlee UKEAT/0307/15/DM, the Senior President of Tribunals accepted Mark’s argument that the Tribunal was wrong to hold that the Claimant could not claim loss of earnings because she had not put herself forward for work (on a zero hours contract). The Tribunal should have looked further at the reason why she had not put herself forward. In her case, the reason was because of disability discrimination she had already suffered. In Anwar v Tower Hamlets UKEAT/0091/10, an appeal under the DDA 1995, Mark successfully argued that when considering whether or not an impairment was likely to last 12 months and therefore be 'long term', the Tribunal must have regard to the likely effect of treatment on that impairment. The Tribunal went on to name several factors that should be taken into account, confirming the law in this area for the first time.

Mark Calway

Overview Mark Calway is an experienced family law specialist advising on all aspects of the law. He has recently been appointed as a Family Recorder to the Western Circuit and acts as an Independent Funding Adjudicator for the Legal Aid Agency. Mark has particular expertise representing parties in care proceedings, often involving complex non-accidental injury, sexual abuse and traumatic brain injury. He advises on private and public family law matters and has a wealth of experience dealing with Court of Protection cases. He has acted for clients in both health and welfare matters and in cases involving property and finance. Mark is able to undertake all ancillary relief matters. He has experience in conducting claims where there are assets of substance [up to £15 million], trusts, business assets, intervening parties and foreign or jurisdictional elements. He conducts cases involving inheritance provision, TOLATA, Schedule 1 Children Act Claims and child support matters. Mark also advises in financial remedy cases, always striving for practical and economic solutions in the best interests of his clients. Mark combines an understanding and sensitive approach to the client with practical and clear advice. His in-court advocacy is robust and efficient and, over 20 years, has gained the respect of both the Judiciary and his opponents. Family Mark is an experienced family law specialist advising on all aspects of the law.  He has recently been appointed as a Family Recorder to the Western Circuit and acts as an Independent Funding Adjudicator for the Legal Aid Agency. Mark has particular expertise representing parties in care proceedings, often involving complex non-accidental injury, sexual abuse and traumatic brain injury. He advises on private and public family law matters and has a wealth of experience dealing with Court of Protection cases.  He has acted for clients in both health and welfare matters and in cases involving property and finance. Mark is able to undertake all ancillary relief matters. He has experience in conducting claims where there are assets of substance [up to £15 million], trusts, business assets, intervening parties and foreign or jurisdictional elements. He conducts cases involving inheritance provision, TOLATA, Schedule 1 Children Act Claims and child support matters. Mark also advises in financial remedy cases, always striving for practical and economic solutions in the best interests of his clients. Mark combines an understanding and sensitive approach to the client with practical and clear advice. His in-court advocacy is robust and efficient and, over 20 years, has gained the respect of both the Judiciary and his opponents. Private Law Children and Domestic Abuse Mark is a very experienced Private Law barristers and accepts instructions in a wide range of cases. Public Law Care and Adoption Mark has a wealth of experience of acting in Public Law Care and Adoption cases. Family Finance Mark is a family finance expert who is able to undertake all ancillary relief matters. His focus specifically, is to offer practical advice in order to settle matters in as advantageous a manner as possible. His Court work combines meticulous preparation and detailed forensic cross-examination. Mark has experience in conducting claims where there are assets of substance [up to £15 million], trusts, business assets, intervening parties and foreign or jurisdictional elements. He also conducts cases involving inheritance provision, TOLATA, Schedule 1 Children Act Claims and child support matters. Reported cases Re S (No. 3) (Care Proceedings) (Article 56: Placement in the Republic of Ireland) [2019] EWFC 36 Re S (Care proceedings: Article 15 Second transfer) [2018] EWHC 3054 (Fam) (29 October 2018) Re D + Ors (Children) 2017 EWFC B87

Mathew Gullick KC

Overview Mathew Gullick KC is an experienced High Court and appellate advocate. He has appeared in more than 30 substantive appeals in the Court of Appeal and the UK Supreme Court, most recently in the leading holiday pay case of Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21, [2022] ICR 1380. He has also had significant involvement in highly complex and long-running matters, including Public Inquiry and Group Litigation experience, and appeared in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Nealon & Hallam v United Kingdom (Judgment 11th June 2024). Mathew’s litigation practice is focused on public law and employment. He has appeared in the Court of Appeal, the Administrative Court and the Upper Tribunal on a wide range of public law matters. In the employment context, he acts for both claimants and respondents (public, private and third sector) across the field of employment law in the Employment Tribunals and the courts. Mathew has extensive experience of advising and appearing on jurisdictional, procedural and costs issues in all types of civil litigation, including in relation to many of the more obscure provisions of the applicable legislation and rules. Several of his cases are cited as precedents in the leading textbooks on civil procedure. He has been involved in numerous high value costs matters, including multi-million pound costs claims in group litigation, and has twice been instructed as specialist costs Counsel to make post-judgment submissions on costs to panels of the UK Supreme Court. Mathew is a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (MCIArb). From September 2018 to September 2024, he served a six-year fixed term as a Deputy High Court Judge, assigned to the King’s Bench Division. He was additionally authorised to sit as a judge of the Administrative Court and in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), and undertook a wide range of interlocutory, trial and appellate work in these judicial roles. Prior to taking Silk in March 2021, Mathew was for 13 years a member of the Attorney-General’s panels of junior Counsel to the Crown in civil matters, including five years on the London A Panel. From July 2015 to November 2018, he was part of the Counsel team instructed by the UK Government in the Kenyan Emergency Group Litigation (KEGL), in which more than 40,000 individuals unsuccessfully brought claims in the High Court arising from their experiences during the ‘Mau Mau’ Emergency in the 1950s. The KEGL was one of the longest-running trials in English legal history, sitting in court for 230 days between the start of the trial in May 2016 and its conclusion in November 2018. The case involved wide-ranging and complex issues including in relation to jurisdiction, limitation, constitutional law, tort (negligence, vicarious liability and common design), evidence and civil procedure. From January to December 2020, he was instructed by Ofsted on several of the Investigations conducted by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), including those into Child Sexual Exploitation by Organised Networks and into Effective Leadership of Child Protection in which Ofsted was a Core Participant. Mathew has been nominated for the Bar Pro Bono Award three times, on the second occasion receiving a special commendation from the judging panel. He is a member of the Advocate (formerly Bar Pro Bono Unit) panel of case reviewers, and has worked as a volunteer for the charity Bridging the Bar since its foundation in 2020. In July 2024, Mathew was elected as a Bencher (member of the governing body) of Gray’s Inn. Outside the courtroom, Mathew has represented the Bar of England & Wales at four Lawyers’ Cricket World Cups (2007-2016). Reported Cases Include: R (on the applications of ADL & Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 994 (Admin), [2024] 4 WLR 63 – leading case on the lawfulness of using electronic monitoring as a condition of immigration bail, including the retention and use of GPS trail data by the Home Office. Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21, [2022] ICR 1380 – workers on permanent contracts who performed work for only part of the year (e.g. during academic terms) were entitled to the full 5.6 weeks’ paid holiday under the Working Time Regulations 1998, which could not be reduced on a pro-rata basis. SC (paras A398-399D: ‘foreign criminal’: procedure) [2020] UKUT 187 (IAC), [2020] Imm AR 1121 – approach to human rights claim raised in response to deportation decision by foreign national whose criminal offence was committed abroad. R (on the application of Jalloh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 4, [2021] AC 262 – a requirement to abide by an overnight home curfew, enforced by electronic tagging, constituted an imprisonment of the claimant for the purpose of the tort of false imprisonment. R (on the applications of Nealon and Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2, [2020] AC 279 – Article 6.2 ECHR not applicable to decisions to refuse award under statutory compensation scheme for miscarriages of justice; scheme would not breach Article 6.2 even if applicable. Kimathi & Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2017] EWHC 3379 (QB), [2018] 4 WLR 48 – Article 9 of the Bill of Rights prevents reports of Parliamentary debates being used as evidence of the truth of the extraneous facts referred to by Members of Parliament in those debates. Mahmud (s.85 NIAA 2002 - 'new matters') [2017] UKUT 488 (IAC), [2018] Imm AR 264 – a decision of the Upper Tribunal which gives guidance on the correct approach to considering a ‘new matter’ in statutory appeals, under s.85 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as amended). Kimathi & Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 3005 (QB), [2017] 1 WLR 1081 – CPR 3.9 could not be used to validate a claim which was a nullity because the claimant was dead when the claim was brought in his name. Publications Contributor to “Millington and Sutherland Williams on the Proceeds of Crime” (Fourth Edition, 2013, Fifth Edition, 2018, and Sixth Edition 2023) (Oxford University Press) “Recusal of Judges in Civil Litigation”, Thomson Reuters Practical Law, February 2022 “Corner House Revisited: The Law Governing Protective Costs Orders”, Judicial Review March 2009, [2009] JR 43 “Cutting Back on Custody”, New Law Journal 11th February 2005, (2005) 155 NLJ 220 “The Criminal Justice Act 2003: Sentencing and Early Release of Fixed-Term Prisoners”, Criminal Law Review August 2004, [2004] Crim LR 653 “Political Donations and Political Expenditure by Companies: The Authorisation and Disclosure Requirements of the Companies Act 1985”, Business Law Review March 2003, (2003) 24 Bus LR 48 “Sentencing and the Home Detention Curfew Scheme”, Criminal Law Review May 2002, [2002] Crim LR 391 Mathew also assisted with the Third Edition (2004), Fourth Edition (2006) and Fifth Edition (2009) of “Understanding the Law” by His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin QC (Oxford University Press) Public and Regulatory Mathew Gullick KC accepts instructions in a wide range of public law matters, including (amongst other areas) immigration, issues relating to the criminal justice system and proceedings involving a wide range of other public bodies and local authorities. In the immigration field, he has been instructed to appear in the UK Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the Administrative Court and the Upper Tribunal, and has been involved in numerous unlawful detention claims and deportation appeals. He has extensive experience of Points-Based System cases, having been instructed on several major appeals relating to the Post-Study Work route following its closure in April 2012. Indicative immigration law cases are: R (AAA & Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – counsel for the Secretary of State on the application for an interim injunction to prevent removals to Rwanda in June 2022 under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP), [2022] EWHC 1686 (Admin), and on the claimants’ appeals to the Court of Appeal and the UK Supreme Court against refusal of interim relief. SC (paras A398-339D: 'foreign criminal': procedure) Albania [2020] UKUT 187 (IAC), [2020] Imm AR 1121 – correct approach to Article 8 ECHR in deportation appeal of foreign national with overseas conviction for murder. R (on the application of Jalloh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 2, [2021] AC 262 – a requirement to abide by an overnight home curfew, enforced by electronic tagging, constituted an imprisonment of the claimant for the purposes of the tort of false imprisonment. R (on the application of Singh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1014, [2019] Imm AR 1275 – Upper Tribunal’s power to reverse oral grant of permission to apply for judicial review. Mahmud (s.85 NIAA 2002 - 'new matters') [2017] UKUT 488 (IAC), [2018] Imm AR 264 - guidance on the correct approach to considering a ‘new matter’ in statutory appeals, under s.85 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as amended). R (on the application of Idira) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1187, [2016] 1 WLR 1694 - detention in prison, under immigration powers, of time-served foreign national offender pending his deportation did not breach Article 5 ECHR. Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 59, [2015] 1 WLR 4546 - application of the evidential flexibility policy to Points-Based System applications; meaning of document missing from a sequence or series. R (on the application of Giri) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 784, [2015] 1 WLR 4418 - Wednesbury review the correct approach to judicial review challenging findings of fact made in a decision under the Immigration Rules; no ‘heightened civil standard of proof’ in relation to findings of dishonesty. R (on the applications of Mehmood and Ali) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 744, [2016] 1 WLR 461 - lead appeal in the litigation arising from the ETS language testing scandal; removal decision under s.10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 invalidated leave extended by s.3C of the Immigration Act 1971; no ‘special or exceptional factors’ existed justifying recourse to judicial review where out-of-country statutory appeal available. PF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 251, [2015] 1 WLR 5235 - correct approach to exercise of the ‘casting vote’ by presiding member of a panel of the First-tier Tribunal; Upper Tribunal hearing statutory appeal for error of law had no jurisdiction to consider legitimate expectation argument arising from Home Office’s actions after the First-tier Tribunal’s decision. SE (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 256, [2014] Imm AR 855 - prospects of rehabilitation in receiving country versus prospects in the UK not relevant to Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise when considering deportation of foreign criminal. Syed & Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 196 - ACCA Professional Level Qualification was not a “UK recognised bachelor or postgraduate degree” so did not qualify for the award of points under the Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) route in the Immigration Rules; role of UK NARIC in assessing the level of non-degree qualifications obtained in the UK. R (on the applications of Muazu and Adda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 3764 (Admin) - detention of immigration detainees refusing food, fluid and medical treatment was not contrary to Home Office policy and was lawful under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR. Secretary of State for the Home Department v Raju & Others [2013] EWCA Civ 754, [2014] 1 WLR 1768 - whether applicants under the Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) route in the Immigration Rules qualified for leave to remain when they had not obtained their degrees at the date of application. Mathew has also appeared in prison law claims and in cases involving challenges to refusals of applications for compensation for miscarriages of justice under the statutory scheme in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Notable cases include: R (on the application of Kay) v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] EWHC 2125 (Admin), [2021] ACD 117 – Applicability of Article 6.1 ECHR to, and lawfulness of, procedure for determination of applications under statutory compensation scheme for miscarriages of justice. R (on the applications of Nealon and Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2, [2020] AC 279 - Article 6.2 ECHR not applicable to decisions to refuse award under statutory compensation scheme for miscarriages of justice; scheme would not breach Article 6.2 even if applicable. R (on the applications of Clark and Drury) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 2383 (Admin) - relevance of the Crown Prosecution Service’s decision to abandon prosecutions at a re-trial following quashing of convictions by the Court of Appeal. R (on the application of Andukwa) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 3988 (Admin), [2015] ACD 54 - where a conviction was reversed on the ground that there had been an available statutory defence which had been overlooked at trial, there was no ‘new or newly discovered fact’ and so compensation was not payable. R (on the application of Hussain) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 1452 (Admin), [2013] ACD 117 - Category A prisoner not entitled to an oral hearing of his annual categorisation review; request for an oral hearing should have been made before the review was undertaken, not afterwards. R (on the application of Adetoro) v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWHC 2576 (Admin), [2013] ACD 16 - lawfulness of decision to revoke earlier decision accepting Parole Board recommendation for move of Category A prisoner to open conditions. In Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Cattrell [2011] EWCA Civ 572, Mathew acted for the successful respondent in an appeal by the Secretary of State arising from the acceptance by the First-Tier and Upper Tribunals that there was no work that would be reliably safe for her as a result of a severe allergy, so that she was entitled to incapacity benefit. He has also acted in other benefit appeals involving similar issues. Another area of interest is all aspects of the law relating to elections and political parties, especially electoral procedure and the law on political donations, as well as local government law, particularly the powers and duties of local authorities. Mathew acted for the appellant in Moss v KPMG LLP [2010] EWHC 2923 (Admin), a statutory appeal against the refusal of an auditor to apply for a declaration that an item in a local authority’s accounts covering income received from penalty charge notices levied on motorists was unlawful. Mathew was a member of the pro bono team of barristers who appeared for the claimant in R (on the application of Compton) v Wiltshire PCT [2009] EWHC 1824 (Admin), in which the decisions of the Primary Care Trust in respect of facilities at Savernake Hospital in Marlborough were challenged. Cranston J's judgment set out the principles to be applied where it is alleged that the decisions of public authorities are vitiated by apparent bias on the part of their advisers. Asset and Tax Recovery Mathew Gullick KC’s asset forfeiture work has seen him appear in the UK Supreme Court and in both divisions of the Court of Appeal, as well as the Crown Court. He also has experience of drafting and appearing in proceedings relating to restraint and enforcement receivership orders and in contempt of court proceedings arising from breaches of restraint orders. His civil practice enables him to bring expertise from other fields, including employment and contract law, into the sphere of asset forfeiture work. He has been a contributor to the last three editions of “Millington and Sutherland Williams on the Proceeds of Crime” (Oxford University Press, Sixth Edition 2023). In R v Ahmad and R v Fields [2014] UKSC 36, [2015] AC 299, Mathew was junior Counsel for the Home Secretary, an intervener in the Supreme Court, in what is now the leading case on the approach to be applied in confiscation proceedings when offenders have benefited jointly from their crime, the Court in its judgment reviewing the case law and explaining the effect of the seminal judgment of Lord Bingham in R v May on this point as well as dealing with the approach to be applied in situations of potential “multiple recovery”. In Minshall v (1) HM Revenue and Customs (2) Crown Prosecution Service [2015] EWCA Civ 741, [2015] Lloyd’s Rep FC 515, he appeared for the CPS in the Court of Appeal in a case involving a claim for restitution of the sum paid under a confiscation order arising from a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in 2011 that there had been unreasonable delay (and a breach of Article 6(1) ECHR) in the criminal appeal proceedings, which had finally concluded in February 2006. The Court held that the European Court’s decision provided no basis for such a claim and that the confiscation order was final and conclusive. Mathew has also appeared in the Court of Appeal in R v Lambert & Walding [2012] EWCA Crim 421, [2012] 2 Cr App R (S) 90 and R v Sivaraman [2008] EWCA Crim 1736, [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 80, on the principles to be applied to the calculation of an offender’s benefit under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and in RCPO v Deprince [2007] EWCA Civ 512, an innocent wife’s claim to a beneficial interest in the marital home which was subject to confiscation which also raised issues under the Human Rights Act. Employment and Discrimination Mathew Gullick KC advises on and appears in a wide range of employment related matters. He acts for both Claimants and Respondents (private, public and third sector) across the range of employment areas, including unfair dismissal, constructive dismissal, wrongful dismissal, all types of discrimination, TUPE, equal pay, restrictive covenants, public interest disclosure, pensions, breach of contract and unlawful deductions from wages (including the non-payment of bonuses). He is an experienced appellate advocate, appearing for Mrs Brazel in the UK Supreme Court in the leading holiday pay case of Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21 [2022] ICR 1380, regarding the statutory paid holiday entitlement of “part-year” workers on permanent contracts. In addition to appearances in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, he has also appeared in the Court of Appeal in Sanders v Newham Sixth Form College [2014] EWCA Civ 734, in which the Court clarified the correct approach to analysing claims of discrimination by failing to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons. Mathew Gullick KC’s employment practice also extends to advising on and appearing in High Court employment matters. He has been involved in several cases involving substantial six-figure damages claims, including for non-payment of bonuses and commission, wrongful dismissal and breach of a compromise agreement. He has also advised both employers and employees on contractual issues relating to remuneration packages, including benefits such as private health insurance. Notable cases at first instance have included: A direct age discrimination claim (acting for the successful Claimant) where the Tribunal found that the Respondent had made the Claimant redundant as part of a management restructure just before his 50th birthday in order to avoid paying a lump sum into the pension fund which would have been necessary in the event he had been made redundant after reaching the age of 50 (which would have enabled him to access his pension early). No consideration had been given to the case for delaying the Claimant’s redundancy for a transitional period to oversee work in progress, as had been done with other employees affected by the restructure; the Tribunal found that had this been done then the Claimant would have been made redundant after his 50th birthday and so would have received his retirement pension early. It rejected the Respondent’s alternative defence of justification and also found that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed. Acting for the successful Claimant, a former Executive Director of an NHS Trust with 25 years’ unblemished service who had been summarily dismissed for gross misconduct for alleged misuse of the work email system. The dismissal took effect two weeks before the expiry of an existing redundancy notice period whereupon the Claimant would have received a substantial redundancy payment. The Tribunal found that the dismissal was both unfair and wrongful, concluding that no reasonable employer would have imposed anything more than a written warning and that the Respondent had failed to establish that the Claimant was guilty of gross misconduct. It further upheld the Claimant’s claim of disability discrimination arising from the Respondent’s failure to postpone the disciplinary hearing at which he was dismissed. Acting for the Respondent at a preliminary hearing in a claim concerning whether or not the provisions of the Civil Service Pension Scheme were discriminatory on the ground of disability – a deposit order was made and the claim subsequently struck out. A three-day preliminary hearing on whether a carer funded by direct payments was an employee of the disabled persons cared for (but who did not have capacity to contract), their relatives who had day to day control of the employment relationship, the charity which administered the contracts, or the local authority with statutory responsibility for the provision of the care and which provided the funding. Representing the defendant employer in Court proceedings brought by the employee to enforce payment under a purported compromise agreement which had been sent to the employee pre-signed but with the wrong figure for compensation inserted in error, which was three times higher than had previously been offered to the Claimant in writing. The Court found that the Defendant had orally withdrawn the offer to settle for the erroneous figure prior to the agreement being signed by the Claimant, and that in any event even if that withdrawal had not been effective then the agreement would have been void for mistake.

Michelle Marnham

Overview Michelle Marnham is a Leading Junior Barrister with over 20 years experience, specialising in Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence. Michelle has particular interest in catastrophic injury claims involving CRPS, traumatic brain injury, spinal injury and fatal accident claims. She is regularly instructed in cases with technical aspects on liability and in a wide variety of employers’ liability, Highways Act Claims and Road Traffic Accident claims. Her Clinical Negligence practice includes expertise dealing with brain; neo-natal and birth defect claims; spinal injury; orthopaedics; sepsis. She has expertise in dealing with allegations of fundamental dishonesty against a background of complicated factual and medical evidence. She is regularly instructed to appear against silks. Michelle is recommend in the Legal 500 as ‘a persuasive and effective advocate who is particularly skilled in dealing with claims involving complex issues.’ . Michelle’s clients say she has a "charming personality" and a "sharp mind". Her empathy and rapport with clients provides reassurance and confidence that their dispute will be resolved in a timely and cost effective way. Michelle regularly contributes articles for Chamber’s newsletter. Michelle is Head of 3PB's Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence team. Michelle Marnham is an employee of Michelle Marnham Limited, a private limited company authorised by the Bar Standards Board to provide legal services (BSB entity number 186920). Michelle Marnham Limited has a contractual arrangement with 3PB Barristers to provide clerking and administrative services including billing and complaints handling. Personal Injury Michelle specialises in personal injury with associated professional negligence and fatal accident claims. Michelle is regularly instructed in cases with technical aspects on liability and in a wide variety of employers’ liability, Highways Act Claims and Road Traffic Accident claims. Michelle has extensive experience in cases concerning staged accidents/RTA fraud and high value ‘malingering’ PI cases. Michelle is Head of 3PB's Personal Injury group. Personal Injury Areas of Expertise Abuse Claim Asbestos Catastrophic Injury Construction Site Accidents Employers Liability Fatal Accident Claims Foreign Jurisdiction Claims Highways Act Claim Occupational Disease Occupiers Liability Professional Negligence Product Liability Psychological Injury Public Liability Road Traffic Accidents Travel Claims WRULD Recent Cases Brain Injury G. Instructed on behalf of the Claimant (protected party) , who suffered significant head injury at the age of 17 months, now aged 18. Requiring expert evidence from experts in the fields of Neurosurgery, Neurology, Neuro-radiologist, Neuro-psychology, Neuro-psychiatry, Educational Psychology and Care and Occupational Therapy. Experts instructed on behalf of Claimant have identified long term symptoms and that the Claimant lacks capacity. Extent of injury in dispute with Defendant. Settlement approved by Master of the High Court in the sum of £1,110,000. E v D. Instructed on behalf of the Claimant who suffered significant injuries as a result of the road traffic accident, including a moderate/severe traumatic brain injury. Claimant also suffered significant psychological injuries. The Claimant required significant rehabilitation and was medically retired from her previous career as a solicitor. The Claimant was left with permanent neuropsychological difficulties. Injury and quantum in dispute. Case settled at JSM in excess of 1 million pounds. S v D. Representing Claimant who suffered brain injury in a RTA and significant Orthopaedic injuries. Ongoing rehabilitation. Liability, causation and quantum in dispute. Recent Pathfinder Meeting. Instructed on behalf of the Claimant who suffered a traumatic brain injury and other significant injuries and now lacks capacity as a result of being run over by her ex-partner, who was subsequently convicted. Liability disputed. Defence pleaded Ex Turpi Causa, Volenti and Contributory Negligence. Liability subsequently agreed and approved, shortly before trial, apportioned 67%/33% in the Claimant’s favour. Case proceeding to trial on quantum. High value claim. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who suffered a traumatic brain injury with psychiatric overlay as a result of a Road Traffic Accident. Complex issues on causation and impact that it has had on Claimant’s ability to return to work. Value of claim in excess of £300,000. M v. A and M. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who sustained life changing injuries as a result of a road traffic accident, including traumatic brain injury with permanent cognitive difficulties, personality change impaired balance and mobility. Claimant also suffered vertical squint and orthopaedic injuries. As a result of his injuries the Claimant lacks capacity. Settlement Approved Spinal Injury G v. F. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who suffered life changing severe neck injury with the potential to make him tetraplegic: disruption of supraspinous and interspinous ligaments from C2 to C6, disc protrusions at C3-4 and C5-6. Liability agreed 50/50. Quantum in dispute, in particular Ogden Disability and future work capacity. Case settled at JSM in the excess of £2 million, prior to the 50% deduction. F v S. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who suffered significant injuries including a left talar neck fracture and dislocation of the peroneal tendons and would require a fusion, a significant injury to his abdomen, that involved the loss of 2 inches of ileum from perforations and the removal of the sigmoid colon and an adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. Quantum in dispute, including whether the Claimant was ‘Ogden Disabled’, the appropriate reduction factor and the Claimant’s likely career path ‘but for the accident’. Case settled at a JSM in excess of £725,000. C v. Y. Instructed on behalf of Claimant, aged 18, who sustained significant and life threatening injuries when he was rendered quadriplegic at scene and underwent a C5 corpectomy. Claimant also suffered a traumatic brain injury and left with permanent residual symptoms and career path altered, resulting in a catastrophic injury claim. Injury and quantum in dispute. Fundamental Dishonesty raised at a JSM and Defendant disclosed surveillance. Claim compromised in the sum of £500,000. T v. I. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who suffered a significant to his pelvic and spine causing sexual dysfunction during the course of his employment whilst tasked with felling a tree. Primary liability denied and contributory negligence alleged. Causation and injury also in dispute. Case settled at JSM Orthopaedic & Chronic pain D v. D. Acted for Claimant in respect of catastrophic injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. Injuries included a traumatic below-knee amputation through the right leg, a traumatic amputation of the right arm, a significant brachial plexus injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder of moderate to severe type. Damages awarded in excess of 1 million pounds. J v. C Acted for the Claimant who suffered traumatic amputation of index finger as a result of an industrial accident. The Claimant went on to develop Complex Regional Pain Syndrome affecting the index finger and hand. To address CRPS the Claimant subsequently he underwent surgery to implant a C6 Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulator (‘DRG’) with left pectoral implantable pulse generator (‘IPG’). Following the DRG surgery the Claimant’s lower limbs were affected, including swelling in his left foot and his ability to walk was compromised. He was referred to a neurologist who diagnosed onset of Functional Neurological Disorder (‘FND’). Primary liability admitted. Contributory negligence alleged. Case compromised with an award of damages of £1.1 million. F v D. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who suffered a left hand crushing injury and developed CRPS requiring selective amputation of the limb. Catastrophic injury claim. Liability and quantum in dispute. Case settled at JSM in the sum of £750,000 S v. R. Acted for a 37 year old diamond driller who suffered a crushing injury to his left [dominant] hand leading to Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type II; Depressive Disorder; and an Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety. Despite significant treatment to the left hand including neurolysis of the digital nerve and local flap to cover the nerve and also further surgery to bury the neuroma the Claimant continued to suffer pain in the hand with reduced grip and pinch strength. The Claimant underwent full implant of spinal cord stimulation which helped to reduce the pain. The need the spinal chord implant Claimant was permanent and the Claimant suffered permanent neuropathic pain of the most severe form. The claim was successfully compromised at a joint settlement meeting for a figure in excess of ½ million pounds. Y v. C Representing the Claimant who sustained significant injuries in a road traffic accident, including fibromyalgia, injury to her cervical and lumbar spine with chronic pain, and severe bilateral tinnitus. Injury and causation in dispute. Case proceeded in the High Court of Justice. Successful compromised following Joint Statements. H v T. Instructed on behalf of the Claimant who suffered injuries at the age of 16 in a road accident. Injuries include: open comminuted fracture of the right femur; complex Grade III A fracture, with delayed union; open fracture of the right tibia; multi-fragment injury to the right knee; and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. C required a tibial osteotomy. Claimant will require a knee replacement at the age of 28-31 and revision at the age of 48-56. Claim compromised at a JSM in excess of £700,000. Assault J v. T, M v T Instructed on behalf of two Claimants in respect of claims in damages for personal injuries and other losses they suffered as a consequence of historical sexual abuse perpetrated against them by their maternal grandfather when they were 3 –8 years of age. Both Claimants were diagnosed as suffering Specified Trauma-and stressor-Related Disorder (DSM-V 309.89) during childhood and continuing, Major Depressive Disorder (DSM-V 296.2); and Panic Disorder (DSM-V 300.01). It was successfully argued at the Assessment of Damages hearing that both Claimants had significantly underachieved at school and suffered a reduced earning capacity as a result. The claim raised issues including whether aggravated damages was appropriate, the correct discount to be applied to the multiplier and the Claimants’ future capacity for work. Both Claimants were awarded in excess of £200,000. Industrial Disease B v. C Instructed on behalf of Claimant who developed asbestosis. Case concerned issue of date of knowledge and limitation. G v. C Instructed on behalf of Claimant who developed mesothelioma based upon exposure during manufacturing employment. M v. C. Acted on behalf of Claimant who developed asbestos related disease as a result of husband’s exposure to asbestos in factory Junior Counsel to Colin Edelman QC in which they successfully acted for a large corporation (quoted on AIM) against a leading worldwide insurance group in respect of a dispute concerning a Public Liability Insurance Policy in the context of asbestos related disease. Involved detailed understanding of the cause of asbestos related disease and development of the disease. Clinical Negligence Michelle’s clinical negligence practice, perfectly complements her personal injury and professional negligence practice. Her reassuring, tactile and empathetic approach with clients in conference builds a strong rapport and confidence. Michelle is an excellent advocate and excels in litigation and mediation and is highly praised for her written work. Clinical Negligence Areas of Expertise Brain Injury Neo-Natal and Birth Defect Claims Spinal Orthopaedic Sepsis Product Liability Cosmetic Surgery Cases of interest include: A claim arising out of the negligent treatment of a pathological fracture of T2 causing compression of the spinal cord with evidence of metastatic cancer and also a traumatic fracture across the T9/10 disc space. As a consequence, the Claimant suffered significant harm, including paralysis, mechanical unstable spine leading to persistent pain, cord compression and incontinence of both bladder and bowel incontinence. A claim concerning the failure to act upon the pathological diagnosis of gallbladder cancer following an laparoscopic cholecystectomy, with a resultant 8 month period delay in the management and treatment of the cancer, from which the Claimant subsequently died. A claim arising out of the delay by GP in referring Claimant to a gastroenterologist for an urgent OGD leading to a delay in diagnoses in respect of oesophageal cancer and the development of advanced esophageal cancer. A claim relating to the negligent treatment of left foot and leg pain with a non-healing foot ulcer, which led to the Claimant requiring a left above knee amputation. A claim arising out of the failure to recognise that the Claimant was suffering from infection following circumcision and bilateral vasectomy, leading to the Claimant developing Fournier’s gangrene requiring repeated debridement and skin grafting. The claim was also advanced upon the basis of lack of informed consent. A claim arising out of the failure to obtain the Claimant’s informed consent in respect of an open inguinal hernia repair. As a consequence, the Claimant developed ilioinguinal neuralgia, increased pain, discomfort and erectile dysfunction. A claim arising out of the delay in diagnosis of Claimant’s aortic dissection. Breach of duty not in dispute, causation denied. A claim arising out of a failure to detect stones within the gallbladder and the common bile duct, causing the Claimant to suffer prolonged pain, vomiting and distress. A claim in the delay in diagnosis, management, and treatment of cervical cancer. A claim concerning whether the Claimant was properly consented in respect of splenectomy, in circumstances that the Claimant subsequently developed sepsis and an untimely death. A claim concerning failure to correctly diagnose the Claimant as suffering from Diffuse B-Cell Lymphoma leading to the development of advanced cancer. A claim concerning the failure to investigate and treat a lung lesion, resulting in a delay in diagnosis of the Claimant’s lung cancer from which the Claimant subsequently died. A claim arising out of the failure to monitor the Claimant on admission in respect of hypoglycaemic episode leading to an overdose of insulin causing a further hypoglycaemic episode and seizure. A claim relating to the diagnosis and treatment of a sessile polyp following a sigmoidoscopy. As a result of the delay an abdominoperineal resection became necessary, and the Claimant lost a large part of his bowel. A claim in the delay in diagnosing and treating the Claimant’s cauda equina syndrome. A claim arising out of the failure by an optometrist to investigate abnormality of vision following a sight test that would have revealed the presence of a partial detached retina. As a consequence, the Claimant subsequently suffered a detached retina.

Nicholas Cotter

Overview Nicholas Cotter specialises in regulatory law (including HSE, EPA, CQC, Sports and business regulations), fraud and serious crime. Nicholas has advised and represented various prosecuting and regulatory authorities (CPS, Complex Crime Team, NCA, RASSO, UKAD and a number of Council Regulatory authorities) Nicholas is often instructed to represent companies and directors in relation to alleged regulatory or criminal fault and is on hand to provide assistance for compliance, pre-charge advice and during potential prosecution. He seeks to provide strategic and client centred approach to his advice and brings a forensic eye and assured and calm presence to his advocacy. Crime Nicholas has extensive experience of criminal law, including: Serious crime consisting of murder, manslaughter, drugs importation, organised crime and sexual offences White-collar crime consisting of fraud, MTIC matters, Bribery, compliance advice, and asset recovery matters Regulatory / Quasi-Criminal matters involving particularly sports law, disciplinary hearings, maritime and food standards matters. Recent cases: Serious crime R v X - Instructed Prosecuting Counsel in an ongoing matter involving a significant drug syndicate operating along the South Coast. R v X - Instructed Prosecuting Counsel in an ongoing matter involving kidnap and the infliction of serious violence. R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in an ongoing matter involving a campaign of stranger rape. R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in an ongoing matter involving a campaign of arsons across the County of Hampshire. R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in ongoing large multi-handed drugs nationwide importation conspiracy. R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in a multiple victim rape allegation at a music festival. R v X - Instructed Defence Junior Counsel in a multiple death dangerous driving case on the M3. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-38001454 R v F - Defence Junior in a 6 handed murder case at the Old Bailey resulting in an acquittal on the murder charge. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29849274 R v Parker et al - Prosecution Junior in “Operation Elevdon" on behalf of the CPS Organised Crime Unit arising from press corruption discovered during the Leveson Inquiry. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/18/sun-labour-mpphone-siobhain-mcdonagh-nick-parker R v B - Defending at the Old Bailey in a historic rape case dated from the 1960s involving a teacher accused by seven former pupils of repeated and systematic sexual abuse. R v X - Defended in a case involving fraud and linked arson values in excess of £2million. R v L - Successfully overturned a conviction before Lord Chief Justice Fulford for alleged historic sexual matters in the 1970s. The appeal was in relation to the unsafe admission of a Defendants previous sexual conviction in the 1980s. R v B - Successful prosecution of a stranger rape case in which the Defendant received a 16 year sentence with an 8 year extension period. R v X - Successful defence at the Old Bailey of a young man implicated in a significant cocaine importation conspiracy. Involving legal argument over evidence procured from Columbia. Financial crime / Asset Forfeiture & recovery / MTIC matters R v H - Instructed Junior Counsel for the in £140 million VAT ‘Missing trader’ fraud (MTIC), Croydon (VHCC PANEL). R v P - Instructed Defence Counsel in relation to an alleged £65,000 false accounting matter, Portsmouth. http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/benefit-cheats-stole-66-000-from-hampshire-councils-in-eight-year-scam-1-4130546 R v P - Instructed Defence Counsel in an internet Conspiracy to defraud, Isleworth. This matter involved an alleged Nigerian internet cash scam targeted at very elderly people. R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in significant hidden assets POCA matter involving six figure sums. R v X - Instructed Counsel in multimillion pound POCA matter, Portsmouth. This fully contested matter concerned a convicted loan shark. Violence/Organised crime R v B - Instructed Defence Counsel for a 13 year old boy charged with manslaughter and robbery, Old Bailey. http://www.guardian-se-ries.co.uk/news/9871168.WALTHAMSTOW__Two_teenagers_guilty_of_killing_student/ R v M - Instructed counsel in the large 'gang' gun seizure in South London. R v K - Instructed Defence Counsel in drug importation case, Canterbury. This case involved a group of Latvian males who were charged with smuggling drugs hidden within the engine of a vehicle. R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in a large conspiracy to kidnap matter. This matter involved a Lithuanian gang who were alleged to be involved in the extortion, violence and kidnap of low-skilled immigrant workers. R v S - Instructed Counsel in an arson with intent to endanger life. http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/local/court-arson-attack-toget-friend-a-new-house-1-3621216 R v B - Instructed Defence Counsel in murder trial, Winchester. http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/the-men-who-killed-brettcarpenter-lee-bevan-1-1232623 R v B - Instructed Defence Counsel in attempt murder s18, Woolwich. This matter concerned a male from Romania who was observed on CCTV planting a carving knife into the neck of a male and concerned issues of mental health and intention. R v E - Instructed Defence Counsel in large scale violent disorder, Woolwich. This matter involved a large pre-arranged gang fight the case demanded detailed disclosure matters and sensitive part eight applications. R v S - Instructed Defence Counsel in organised high value jewellery robbery, Chichester. This matter concerned a highly organised gang from Liverpool who as a team committed a daylight robbery on the shop before undertaking a high-speed getaway from the police. R v S - Instructed Defence Counsel in an attempt murder in Cambridge. R v Y - Currently instructed Defence Counsel in a gang kidnap, extortion and torture case in South London. R v Aylett - Instructed Defence Counsel in road rage violence, Court of Appeal, reported. This matter concerned an appeal of sentence passed in relation to the actions of a male involved in road rage. R v C - Instructed to represent the defence in a highly reported case involving the defence of a lorry driver accused of causing the death of an elderly lady at a crossing within the grounds of Luton airport. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11390936 Fraud, Business and Financial crime (including VAT and MTIC), Compliance advice, and Proceeds of crime) Recent cases include : R x X - Currently instructed Defence Counsel in significant company VAT fraud and linked POCA. R x X - Instructed Defence Counsel in six figure POCA matter linked to illegal use of farm land for unlicensed activity. R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel representing Dutch nationals being pursed in a six figure POCA matter (life style). R v X - Instructed Junior Counsel for the in £140 million VAT ‘Missing trader’ fraud (MTIC), Croydon (VHCC PANEL). R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in relation to an alleged £65,000 false accounting matter, Portsmouth. http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/benefit-cheats-stole-66-000-from-hampshire-councils-in-eight-year-scam-1-4130546 R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in an internet Conspiracy to defraud, Isleworth. This matter involved an alleged Nigerian internet cash scam targeted at very elderly people. R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in significant hidden assets POCA matter involving six figure sums. R v X - Instructed Counsel in multimillion pound POCA matter, Portsmouth. This fully contested matter concerned a convicted loan shark. Public and regulatory Regulatory Law (including maritime, fire regulation, CQC, environmental law and Heath and Safety matters) Nicholas undertakes instructions in a wide variety of regulatory and quasi-criminal matters. Nicholas has prosecuted for a number of local and national authorities and has extensive experience representing employers, employees, directors and companies often charged with complicated and offences that carry profound reputation damage. Nicholas is often instructed by insurance firms and risk assessors to provide pre-charge advice on the merits of a matter before action and is well versed in providing realistic, swift and cost appropriate advice to both those insured and self-funding. As such he provides advice and assistance targeted to avoid, challenge or minimise the effects of any regulatory investigation or prosecution whilst maintaining a commercial eye to an individual means and ultimate business reputation of the client. Recent examples: Environmental Law R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in an environmental prosecution of a company director for alleged chemical air pollution. R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in an environmental prosecution of a farmer for breaching of the clean air act. R v X - Representing a nationwide Salvage and building demolition Merchants charged with exceeding their landfill license. This case involved advising on the merits of a dismissal argument and the tactical approach this may have on the merits of the protection. The Environmental Agency upon consideration of the potential submission accepted a lower sanction resulting in a significantly lower fine with reduced reputation damage. R v X - Representing a large property development firm and its primary directors charged with significant TPO breaches. R v X - Representing a Defendant in relation to a POCA matter linked to light valuation post breach of a TPO. Food Safety R v X- Defence Counsel Representing a firm of nationwide food suppliers who were accused of breaching the EU Regulations on food hygiene involving the storage of milk and the production of cheese. This highly complicated matter met with success in avoiding findings in relation to the storage and hygiene of the primary functions of the business. R x X - Defence Counsel representing a restauranteur charged with hygiene offences. R x X - Defence Counsel representing a chain of patisserie charged with hygiene offences. R v X - Provided advice on Alcohol licensing requirements for a large international warehousing and packaging company. Care Quality Commission R v X - Advising positively on the merits of a Care Quality Commission Appeals tribunal involving the cancellation of a service providers registration across a large and well established care home business. R v X - Successfully advising and representing a care provider facing sanction from the CQC and potential corporate manslaughter charges. Disciplinary Work R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel representing a nurse before the NMC in relation to fitness to practice allegation. R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel representing a solicitor sanctioned in relation to dishonesty. R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel representing a therapist sanctioned for undertaking an unprofessional relationship with a client. Trading Standards Dorset Trading standards v X - Instructed to prosecute on behalf of the council in relation to breaches of trading by this subsidiary of a large nationwide plumbing business. Mr Cotter advised on the instruction of experts plus the digging up of a garden in order to demonstrate that the defendant had undertaken otiose and incompetent work. The trial was ultimately successful against both the company and its employees. Berkshire Trading Standards v X - Instructed Defence Counsel to defend a vintage clothing company selling items including a substantial number of Converse trainers. The trainers were fake and to compound matters this was a second offence. Mr Cotter negotiated guilty pleas which avoided a prison sentence for his client. However the real impact of the case was POCA. The BTS sought a figure in the high hundreds of thousands. In the end the figure was reduced to close to a hundred thousand albeit after a full hearing and the use of forensic accountants. Trading Standards v X - Mr Cotter was instructed to advise a management level employee who had been implicated in a large and global mis-selling allegation. Full advice and guidance was given or representations and the Prosecution against the employee was not pursued. Health And Safety HSE v X - A canal garage was being dismantled when a side of the boat fell over and led to an employee being trapped. Sadly he lost his legs. Mr Cotter was instructed as Defence Counsel and was heavily involved in negotiating a plea package, ensuring that only the company was prosecuted and in providing full mitigation to keep the company operational. HSE v X - A lift engineering company working on the Cross rail project did not ensure appropriate safe guards were in place. The lift fell unexpectedly and severed the thumb of an employee. Mr Cotter was instructed late but negotiated a plea package for the company and provided full mitigation to reduce the impact of a fine. Lincoln Council v X - A care home was prosecuted under the HS regulations. Three person died and the home was charged that it did not properly safeguard for risk for the HS of the residents of the home. Nick successfully challenged the issue of causation (via a quasi-newton hearing) and ensured that a limited package of pleas in this complex case was advanced plus substantial mitigation. R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel representing the manager of a care home who was charged with failing to ensure the safety of her residents under the Fire Reform Act. This case sadly in solved the loss of the lives of two residents in a fire but thankfully led to the acquittal of the manager. R v X - Currently Instructed to Prosecute as Junior Counsel a large holiday nationwide home company charged with failing to ensure the safety of its employees. R v X - Currently instructed to Defend a construction company accused of failing to ensure the safety of its non-employees on a building site which resulted in a loss of life. Sports Nicholas regularly appears before sports regulation / disciplinary hearings and provides advice on rules, compliance and the consequences of infringements. Nicholas has a significant background in malfeasance, bribery and fraud and is well placed to deal with these matters arising from corruption and criminality in sport. He has a particular specialisation in anti-doping law both Defending and Prosecuting. Recent cases: UKAD v X - Instructed Counsel for UKAD in a unique body dimorphism case pertaining to reasonable excuse and failing to supply. UKAD v X - Instructed Counsel for a professional regional rugby player who fell foul of the use of banned supplement. UKAD conceded that some evidence existed which supported lack of doping education and no intentional use and the panel in turn were convinced of the merit of early return permission to training despite the imposition of a disqualification period. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/31552990 UKAD v X - Instructed Counsel for UKAD in a case that resulted in the first UK lifetime ban for a member of the “support team” for an athlete and impacted on the issue of who could be included within the definition of support personnel (namely an athlete's parent). www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-28641672 https://www.ukad.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-05/ukad_vs_tinklin.pdf BHA v X - Represented a professional flat racing Jockey before a full disciplinary panel accused by the BHA of the offences of sample tampering and bringing the sport into disrepute. The issue resolved around the use of illicit substances and the athletes attempt to use /acquire another individuals sample to mask the primary offence. UKAD v X- Providing advice to a basketball player charged with a drug tampering offence namely that the athlete tried to pass off another athletes name when providing a sample. The case reached the tribunal and the athlete was given a significant reduced sentence in light of his mitigation and early advice. UKAD v X -Representing a cyclist who had refused to provide a sample when requested after competition. The athlete was advised early in the matter and the key issues argued before the tribunal were primarily “compelling justification” and “no significant fault” for failing to provide a sample. The tribunal recorded a finding of no significant fault in favour of the cyclist and a much reduced ban. Nicholas also subsequently advised on the implications of disqualification upon prize money. NADP (APPEAL) v LLEWELLYN - Representing a young boxer who had taken a sports supplement. The supplement contained a substance banned during competition and the existence of the substance within the supplement was not known to the athlete. Marine and Fisheries law Nicholas has expertise that focuses on the maritime sector and linked Regulatory and Heath and Safety spheres. He has significant experience in providing pre-charge advice and guidance for both Defence and Prosecution teams and is regularly instructed to represent owners, employees and companies. He has provided advice in actions brought by the Maritime Coastguard Agency (‘MCA’) (HSE) and has also defended a number of cases prosecuted by the Marine Management Organisation (‘MMO’). Recent cases: R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel representing the Master of a cargo ferry being prosecuted under the Merchant Shipping Act (Collisions) for a significant accident involving another large cargo ferry. R v X - Instructed Defence counsel representing an international captain accused of removing salvage from shipwrecks within British waters without an appropriate licence. R v X - Representing an international salvage operation after being boarded by the Royal Navy and subsequently prosecuted for salvage work conducted within the Economic Zone (including a significant POCA element). R v X - Advising the MCA in relation to a fisheries/harbour licensing prosecution. R v X - Representing the Company owners of a private harbour in relation to a significant industrial accident that occurred during the dismantling of a barge. R v X - Representing a ferry taster charged under the collision regulations.

Nicholas Leviseur

Overview Nicholas Leviseur specialises in chancery and common law disputes with particular emphasis on professional disciplinary and regulatory cases, including medical negligence. He also regularly undertakes serious personal injury claims, particularly those involving serious disputes between experts about causation, or in high value cases where quantification of damages raises difficult issues of principle. He has considerable experience in bringing actions against the M.O.D. Recent chancery and commercial cases have included an indemnity claim arising out of the sale of heavily polluted land (itself the subject of litigation in the House of Lords) and defending a claim for run-off damages flowing from the sale of an offshore telecommunications company. Nicholas Leviseur is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact Nicholas for a copy of his privacy policy which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may collect about you, or that is provided to him, will be processed by him. He will provide a copy of this policy to you within 2 working days of its request. Commercial Nicholas Leviseur has an extensive practice in and considerable experience of commercial litigation in the High Court and Court of Appeal in London and in the negotiated and arbitral resolution of profit sharing, commercial development and buy out agreements and partnership disputes. He is also instructed in arbitral appeals to the High Court. A significant proportion of Nicholas practice encompasses claims of defamation and malicious falsehood, privacy and data protection. He regularly advises in relation to all aspects of defamation cases, including territorial jurisdiction and serious harm. In addition, Nicholas advised potential defendants in relation to the various defences open to them, and the level of likely damages. Nicholas Leviseur’s practice also extends to disputes including passing off, telecommunications, rectification, gas supply solus agreements, land development and mineral extraction contracts, director and shadow director share and bonus agreements, commercial hold harmless clauses and avoidance of liability in commercial insurance contracts. He is regularly instructed in disputes involving entrepreneurs, businesses and banks and in partnership disputes between doctors, dentists and veterinary surgeons, restaurateurs and solicitors, as well as in negligence actions against solicitors and other professionals. He has considerable familiarity with pre-action remedies and injunction relief and, in appropriate cases, with the grant and discharge of Anton Piller, Mareva, Norwich Pharmacal, and Khanna orders and in working knowledge of the methods commonly used to place funds in offshore jurisdictions. Nicholas Leviseur accepts instructions under the CCG’s Standard Contractual Terms for Professional Services. Clinical Negligence Nicholas Leviseur has an extensive practice and considerable experience in serious personal injury and clinical negligence claims particularly those involving disputes between experts as to causation and high value cases where quantification of damage raises serious issues of principle. He is regularly instructed in brain injury cases and has a particular expertise in managing multi disciplinary teams of experts from an early stage in the litigation process. Clinical negligence cases of interest have included genital surgery, general practitioner want of care, obstetric disasters, neurological misdiagnosis and those in which there has been a real absence of consent to surgical intervention. He has also appeared in a number of important cases in which very real issues of contributory negligence have been addressed by the Court of Appeal. He has considerable familiarity with issues which commonly arise in whole life loss of earnings and care cases and is a contributor to the PNBA publication Facts and Figures. Nicholas has considerable experience in multiparty and lengthy inquest hearings both with and without juries involving the examination of experts particularly in cases of public interest. His expertise includes: death in care homes, workplace deaths, toxicology, systems analysis and structural failure, public space deaths, cases involving the police and armed forces and multi vehicle collisions. He has a particular interest in inquest work as a necessary preliminary to the issue of civil proceedings and associated costs protection. Notable Cases Akers v Heald and the MIB The Times 14 January 2003 CA Eagle v Chambers (No 1) [2004] RTR 9 CA Eagle v Chambers (No 2) [2005] 1WLR 3081 CA Roe v Novak and Manchester City Council The Times 27 November 1998 CA Stacey v Joint Mission Hospital Equipment Board The Times 5 November 2001 Personal Injury Nicholas Leviseur has an extensive practice and considerable experience in serious personal injury and clinical negligence claims particularly those involving disputes between experts as to causation and high value cases where quantification of damage raises serious issues of principle. He is regularly instructed in brain injury cases and has a particular expertise in managing multi disciplinary teams of experts from an early stage in the litigation process. Clinical negligence cases of interest have included genital surgery, general practitioner want of care, obstetric disasters, neurological misdiagnosis and those in which there has been a real absence of consent to surgical intervention. He has also appeared in a number of important cases in which very real issues of contributory negligence have been addressed by the Court of Appeal. He has considerable familiarity with issues which commonly arise in whole life loss of earnings and care cases and is a contributor to the PNBA publication Facts and Figures. Nicholas has experience with marine accidents to include off shore rig cases, falling into holds and two liner holiday cases. Nicholas has considerable experience in multiparty and lengthy inquest hearings both with and without juries involving the examination of experts particularly in cases of public interest. His expertise includes: death in care homes, workplace deaths, toxicology, systems analysis and structural failure, public space deaths, cases involving the police and armed forces and multi vehicle collisions. He has a particular interest in inquest work as a necessary preliminary to the issue of civil proceedings and associated costs protection. Notable Cases Akers v Heald and the MIB The Times 14 January 2003 CA Eagle v Chambers (No 1) [2004] RTR 9 CA Eagle v Chambers (No 2) [2005] 1WLR 3081 CA Roe v Novak and Manchester City Council The Times 27 November 1998 CA Stacey v Joint Mission Hospital Equipment Board The Times 5 November 2001 Public and Regulatory Nicholas Leviseur is a well-known regulatory barrister with considerable experience of appearing in regulatory tribunals both as an advocate and as a legal assessor. His experience extends beyond the formally regulated sectors to include the disciplinary bodies set up by private organisations to control the conduct of their membership including political, trade and professional bodies. He has considerable experience in advising at an early stage before proceedings are instituted, in helping to negotiate consensual disposals, and of appearing at interlocutors and final hearings. His experience covers all the medical, dental, nursing and ancillary medical professions as well as accountancy, education, ecclesiastical, environmental, health & Safety and the legal services professions. He also has considerable related experience of judicial review proceedings before the High Court. Nicholas is regularly appearing in the first and upper tier tribunals and the High Court in relation to all aspects of local authority work and ancillary criminal enforcement proceedings brought by a variety of government agencies. Over the years Nicholas has built a reputation and solid practice working for and against many regulators and is often found as an opponent to KC’s and leading counsel. Nicholas has recent experience working for and against the following regulators: NMC, CQC, GMC, SRA, UKCP, GPHC, BACP, OFSTED, GDC, CIMA, Recent significant cases have included: Medical/Care Advising on the admissibility of highly prejudicial medical evidence given before a coroner and of the narrative verdict of the coroner itself, and subsequently successfully excluding both evidence and verdict Negotiating successfully with the SRA as to the terms of a compromise agreement not involving the striking off of either client in a case involving the misuse of client funds totalling more than £500,000 over a 4-year period Representing a distinguished practitioner at the end of her career before 3 separate tribunals and professional bodies in cases involving probity, clinical judgement and root and branch attacks on competence, resulting in complete acquittals in all cases. Defending a primary school teacher against allegations of physical violence against young children, cross examining hostile teaching assistants, analysing data and social media records and securing acquittals in respect of each allegation. H v GMC: Successfully appealing to the High Court against a striking off decision made by the General Medical Council in a case, against a KC as opposing counsel, involving financial dishonesty and the improper use of reserved medical qualifications D v GMC: Successfully appealing to the High Court to force the reconsideration of orders made against a doctor by the General Medical Council General Pharmaceutical Council v A: Representing a pharmacist accused of long standing sexually motivated conduct towards a junior member of staff and avoiding strike off General Pharmaceutical Council v B: Successfully resisting an application for an interim order against the managing director and owner of a pharmacy chain accused of supplying and facilitating the improper transfer of the active ingredients of new wave recreational drugs to unqualified persons Professional Discipline Pearson v SRA: Successfully representing a solicitor in the evening of his professional career before his professional regulator against allegations of misuse of client account funds, over charging and accounts irregularities such that strike off was avoided CQC v Oakdene: Representing a nursing home, its owners and manager against charges brought by the CQC for significant failings in care resulting in serious harm to an elderly disabled resident under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 D v Association of Dance Movement Psychotherapists UK Ltd: Acting for the successful claimant in the High Court against striking off decisions made by her professional body in breach of its internal procedures Licensing / Animal Welfare H v Crawley Borough Council: Advising, representing and successfully overturning a local authority decision to close kennels on animal welfare and fit and proper person grounds in aa case in which the documentary evidence exceeded 10,000 pages. Health and Safety C BC v N: Advising, appearing and successfully striking out charges brought against a night club for significant breaches of covid regulations. Ecclesiastical Law Van der Zyl v Sizer: Appearing as prosecution counsel in the only Church of England Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal to be heard in public. Prosecuting allegations that a clergyman provoked and offended the Jewish community and engaged in anti-Semitic behaviour. Environmental Law Low v Z and H: Representing landlords in court in respect of statutory nuisances under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and successfully negotiating agreed outcomes before judgement.

Nick Kaplan

Overview Nick Kaplan specialises in commercial and contractual disputes, with a particular emphasis on construction and engineering. Nick has detailed knowledge of the full range of construction issues and has dealt with a wide variety of both contentious and non-contentious matters. His experience includes: payment disputes, delay claims, claims for defective works, claims arising from defective construction materials and associated product liability, construction professional negligence, enforcement of adjudicators’ decisions and recovery of adjudicators’ fees and expenses. Prior to joining Chambers, Nick worked in the Construction and Engineering Department of a leading City law firm. His work was particularly focused on advising and preparing submissions in relation to complex and high-value construction adjudications. In that capacity Nick also gained experience defending clients in a number of Health and Safety prosecutions by the HSE, and is familiar with the range of health and safety challenges that those in the construction sector face. Pro-bono During his GDL and BPTC years Nick was involved with a number of legal advice clinics where he advised clients on a range of matters including employment and housing management issues. Articles Grove Developments: - Unloosening or tightening the Construction Act’s Gordian Knot?, May 2019, Adjudication Society Construction and Engineering Nick is familiar with all standard forms of construction contract and regularly advises employers, contractors and subcontractors in relation to disputes that arise under them. Nick also has extensive experience in advising clients in relation to large-scale maintenance and supply contracts, particularly in the social housing sector. Nick has particular experience running, and drafting submissions in, construction adjudications ranging from low-value to multi-million pound disputes. Nick both brings and defends adjudications and is well versed in the particular strategic and legal challenges that the adjudication process gives rise to. He has both brought and defended a number of challenges to adjudicators’ decisions in the courts, and has advised and acted for adjudicators looking to recover their fees. Recent Cases Nick is currently instructed by the Government of Montserrat in a high value arbitration concerning allegations of repudiatory breach of a construction contract and associated claims and counterclaims. In Hog Construction Ltd and Hog Group Limited v Michael Paul Langridge (2018) EWHC 2889 (TCC) Nick successfully acted for the claimants in a Part 8 claim seeking declarations that the defendant was not entitled to adjudicate against either of the two claimants. Nick is currently instructed by a well-known adjudicator looking to recover his fees and expenses following a series of contested adjudications. Nick was involved with the preliminary ‘desk-top’ investigations into the fire at Grenfell, consequently he is familiar with the particular challenges faced by building owners and contractors in relation to fire-safety regulations, cladding and construction defects. Nick referred an adjudication in relation to a contractors application for a 700+ day extension of time, successfully arguing that on proper assessment of the EOT claim the contractor was entitled to no extension of time. Nick successfully defended a client in a prolonged £12 million adjudication arising under a large maintenance and supply contract which covered thousands of properties across the country. After several rounds of submissions, the Referring Party was awarded just 5% of the sums it had claimed. Nick subsequently advised on the settlement negotiations between the parties. Nick advised and represented a well-known adjudicator in a successful summary judgment application for the recovery of the adjudicator’s fees. Summary Judgement was granted and the adjudicator’s fees and his expenses in pursuing them were recovered. In The Vinden Partnership Ltd v ORCA LGS Solutions and Others (2017) EWHC B24 (TCC), Nick advised and represented the well-known adjudicator Peter Vinden in a successful summary judgement application for the recovery of Mr Vinden's fees. Nick resisted enforcement of an adjudicators’ decision, successfully arguing that the adjudicator had lacked jurisdiction to determine the dispute.. Commercial Nick's commercial practice focuses on complex contractual disputes and payment claims, the supply of goods and services, product liability and professional negligence. A significant proportion of the matters in which he acts raise questions of conflicts between international jurisdictions. Nick regularly acts for clients at both interlocutory and final hearings and his experience at a law firm prior to joining chambers ensures that he has a strong client- focused approach, with a ready grasp of the wider strategic objectives that can drive commercial disputes. In each of his practice areas he represents parties in arbitration, the High Court, and the County Court. In each of his practice areas Nick represents parties in arbitration, the High Court and the County Court. Recent cases Microlise Limited v (1) James Kemball Limited (2) Uniserve Holdings Limited High Court (KBD) dispute between a Transport Logistics group of companies and the supplier of transport telemetry devices fitted into cabs of lorries raising several issues as to (i) contract formation; (ii) incorporation of terms; (iii) allegations of breach and misrepresentation; (iv) causation and quantification of loss. The Case also raised issues of what is necessary in terms of a clause to exclude the statutory implied terms of “fit for purpose” and “satisfactory quality” from the transactions. Nick was led by David Parratt KC. Awaiting Judgment High Court (KBD) dispute involving the purchase of 1930s Italian Racing car at auction for the then record price for a car of its kind of c.£1,200,000. The case raised several issues including (i) precontractual representations and contractual warranties; (ii) provenance; and (iii) value. Settled on favourable grounds. Nick was led by David Parratt KC. LMAA Arbitration proceedings in 3 inter-related disputes concerning the supply of security systems and devices on four Yachts. Nick was Instructed by the Claimants in a Claim for c.£1,000,000 in outstanding fees owing under the contract. The case raised several issues including various setoffs allegedly due under other contracts. Nick was engaged at pleading stage, and after raising various ‘requests for further information’ arising from the Defendant’s pleadings Settled on favourable grounds. Acting for the Claimant in a claim against multinational logistics company for alleged overpayments made under a Contract for services where charges had been applied on the wrong basis. The case raised several issues as to the meaning and effect of various clauses, in particular the pricing mechanism and various limitation and exclusion clauses. Settled at mediation. Instructed on behalf of the Defendant in a dispute between a well-known supplier of coaches (and associated financing as well as repair and maintenance services) on hire purchase terms (the Claimant) and its customer (the Defendant), following termination of the hire-purchase agreement. Both parties alleged that the other was in repudiatory breach. There are substantial disputes as to (among other things) the meaning and effect of various contractual documents and provisions, including what (if any) terms are implied and what entitlement (if any) the Defendant had to make time of the essence under the contract. Nick successfully resisted an application to set aside a statutory demand arising out of a c.£10,000,000 commercial fraud claim. Medsted Associates Ltd v Canaccord Genuity Wealth (International) Ltd [2017] EWHC 1815 High Court (Comm) dispute between a Broker and Investors relating to fiduciary duties owed. Nick acted in a junior capacity on behalf of the Defendant, which successfully avoided an award of substantial damages against it.

Nicole Bollard

Overview Nicole is a specialist Intellectual Property (IP) barrister. She is regularly instructed in cases in the High Court, IPEC and the UKIPO. Nicole’s practice covers all areas of IP and she has recently been instructed in claims concerning trade marks, designs, copyright, passing off, patents and breach of confidence. Nicole has also recently appeared in the Company Names Tribunal. Nicole’s IP practice is complemented by her extensive experience in commercial litigation. She is regularly instructed in a wide range of commercial matters, both independently of and in conjunction with IP disputes. Examples of recent work Alyssa Smith Jewellery Limited v Alisa Goodstone t/a Alyssa Jewellery Design [2021] EWHC 1482 (IPEC). Claim for passing off relating to jewellery brands. Scott Hallsworth v Kurobuta Limited - KUROBUTA (O/359/19). Successfully opposed appeal to the Appointed Person. DPA (London) Limited v Andrea D’Aguanno, Gretel Muller and MUDA Architecture Ltd [2020] EWHC 2374. Claim for copyright infringement and breach of contract. Muckle Brig Limited v Gleann Mor Spirits Company Limited - LEITH GLASS WORKS (O/244/20). Successfully opposed appeal to the Appointed Person. Grundfos Holdings A/S v Abcot UK Limited and another (IP-2019-000187). Ongoing dispute concerning trade mark infringement and passing off relating to the sale of parallel imports. Lease Comparison Limited v Carparison Limited (IP-2019-000052) - IPEC claim for passing off. Visual Foods Limited v New Harvest Wholesale Limited and another (IP-2019-000182) – IPEC claim concerning trade mark infringement. Examples of copyright cases: alleged copying of a crime fiction novel; use of rap lyrics by another artist; and ownership of architects’ plans and models. Examples of trade mark cases: skin care brands; international magazine; Chinese martial arts; coffee shop branding. Examples of design right cases: sports kit; safety harness; domestic utility cupboard; lunch box. Examples of patent cases: construction device involved in the manufacture of roads; construction tool involved in building walls. Kirk Silo Installations Limited v Mansfield Garage Doors Limited (0/676/19) and(0/012/20) – successfully obtained an order for the change of the Respondent’s company name. Commercial Nicole has a wide range of experience in commercial matters including advising, drafting and representing clients in a range of general contractual and commercial matters. Nicole has extensive experience representing clients in the following matters: Breach of contract Agency Insolvency & bankruptcy Sale and supply of goods & services Misrepresentation, undue influence & duress Professional negligence Intellectual property Non-contentious Nicole also accepts instructions in non-contentious matters and has experience in drafting and advising on: Share holder agreements Manufacturing agreements Standard terms and conditions Data protection notices The limits and exceptions to issue estoppel: Nicole analyses Thomas v Luv One Luv All Promotions Ltd and another [2021] EWCA Civ 732 for Practical Law's Dispute Resolution blog. Recent cases Advising and drafting a skeleton argument in relation to a claim concerning the restriction of a former employee’s use of a personal LinkedIn account which involved issues of restrictive covenants and general contractual arguments. Advising on a claim in relation to the ownership of a domain name which involved issues of undue influence and mistake. Successfully obtaining an interim injunction to restrain the presentation of a winding-up petition. Drafting a defence to a claim for breach of contract and misrepresentation concerning the sale of a dentist practice. Advising in respect of solicitor’s negligence in advising on settlement. Instructed in relation to a claim for a preference under s.239 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Acting as a junior in an arbitration concerning the installation of industrial fittings. Intellectual Property Nicole’s Intellectual Property practice includes copyright, trade marks, passing off, designs and confidential information. Examples of Nicole’s recent work includes the following: Achieving a favourable settlement in a claim for infringement of a sports kit design Advising in a trade mark dispute concerning an international magazine Advising in relation to the copying of music lyrics Drafting pleadings in a design case in connection with a toy She also has experience of advising and acting in matters concerning domain names and database rights. In August 2017 Nicole attended the Cambridge University Intellectual Property Law Summer School. Hosted by well-known senior IP lawyers the one week course included lectures and various practical exercises including an application for injunctive relief. Nicole completed her pupillage under the supervision of IP specialist Victoria Jones, and continues to work closely with counsel in a broad range of intellectual property matters including copyright, trade marks and passing off. Recent IP cases Alyssa Smith Jewellery Limited v Alisa Goodstone t/a Alyssa Jewellery Design [2021] EWHC 1482 (IPEC). Claim for passing off relating to jewellery brands. Scott Hallsworth v Kurobuta Limited - KUROBUTA (O/359/19). Successfully opposed appeal to the Appointed Person. DPA (London) Limited v Andrea D’Aguanno, Gretel Muller and MUDA Architecture Ltd [2020] EWHC 2374. Claim for copyright infringement and breach of contract. Muckle Brig Limited v Gleann Mor Spirits Company Limited - LEITH GLASS WORKS (O/244/20). Successfully opposed appeal to the Appointed Person. Grundfos Holdings A/S v Abcot UK Limited and another (IP-2019-000187). Ongoing dispute concerning trade mark infringement and passing off relating to the sale of parallel imports. Lease Comparison Limited v Carparison Limited (IP-2019-000052) - IPEC claim for passing off. Visual Foods Limited v New Harvest Wholesale Limited and another (IP-2019-000182) – IPEC claim concerning trade mark infringement. Examples of copyright cases: alleged copying of a crime fiction novel; use of rap lyrics by another artist; and ownership of architects’ plans and models. Examples of trade mark cases: skin care brands; international magazine; Chinese martial arts; coffee shop branding. Examples of design right cases: sports kit; safety harness; domestic utility cupboard; lunch box. Examples of patent cases: construction device involved in the manufacture of roads; construction tool involved in building walls. Kirk Silo Installations Limited v Mansfield Garage Doors Limited (0/676/19) and(0/012/20) – successfully obtained an order for the change of the Respondent’s company name. Property and Estates Nicole practices in all areas of property law and is regularly instructed to advise and represent clients in the High Court, County Court and First Tier Tribunal as well as at meetings within the ADR sphere. Nicole's experience covers the broad spectrum of real property, including nuisance, trespass, boundaries and easements. Nicole also has good expertise in landlord and tenant matters, including: commercial leases, possession hearings, rent arrears and service charges, disrepair and forfeiture. Nicole regularly advises and represents clients in matters involving TOLATA (Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustee Act) issues, and is known for giving clear strategic advice to resolve matters as quickly and efficiently as possible. Nicole has substantial experience in cases involving right to light, property damage, access injunctions (including those for utility services), mortgages and charging orders. Recent cases Advising on numerous claims for nuisance, arising from rights of way and rights to light. Advising in relation to the parties’ respective beneficial interests in a property owned solely by one party, which involved considering TOLATA claims and proprietary estoppel. Successfully defending a claim for breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment. Obtaining an interim injunction in the High Court to prevent interference with the right of way of a property developer. Obtaining an interim injunction requiring a landlord to allow a commercial tenant to re-enter the property. Obtaining an access injunction to allow a utility company to access their services on farm land where the landowner was refusing access.

Nigel Ribbands

Overview Nigel is a Barrister, Chartered Quantity Surveyor, Chartered Arbitrator and Panel Registered Adjudicator with over 35 years’ experience of the UK and international building and civil engineering industry. He has a unique blend of academic standing and wide ranging experience in this specialist sector. Nigel is a member of 3PB’s pre-eminent Construction and Engineering Group. Construction and engineering Nigel has over 35 years’ experience of the building and civil engineering industry including over 20 years’ experience of UK and international dispute avoidance/resolution techniques. Nigel was a Director in one of the UK’s leading and internationally renowned specialist firms, providing expert forensic quantity surveying, programming and dispute management services, before setting up his own practice in 2004 to focus on private tribunal work and expert opinion evidence on quantity surveying matters. Nigel has represented many clients in an advisory and/or testifying capacity giving opinion evidence to various tribunals including the High Court, QBD, Technology and Construction Court (TCC). He is also an accomplished and well respected arbitrator and adjudicator earned by conducting over 100 references on issues such as contract formation, contract interpretation, repudiation, termination, quality of work, cause and liability for delay, payment notices, valuation of complex work, loss and/or expense, additional cost, interim and final payments and damages. Projects Nigel has worked on many high profile projects including, Beirut International Airport; Bishops Square, Spitalfields, London; Ascot Racecourse Redevelopment; The Arena & Conference Centre, Liverpool; T5 Heathrow; Dubai Festival City, UAE; The Sage Music Centre, Gateshead; Media City, Salford Quays; Crossrail, London and Project Omega, Northern Ireland. Neutrals Arbitrator and Adjudicator Nigel is a highly skilled and experienced arbitrator and adjudicator and is appointed to a number of panels including RICS, CIArb, RIBA, CIC, CPA, CEDR Solve (2008) and named in contracts such as T5 Heathrow. He also passed at the highest grade, the construction industry collaborative training “master class” initiative supported by AICA, CIArb, ICE, RIBA and RICS. Nigel has over 16 years’ experience sitting as an adjudicative tribunal.

Nikolai Lazarev

Overview Nikolai Lazarev specialises in international commercial litigation, arbitration, corporate finance, capital markets and sovereign wealth, and provides a broad range of specialist legal and commercial transactional advice. He advises some of the world's largest enterprises and leading financial institutions, as well as ultra-high-net-worth individuals and family offices in complex, often high-value, multi-jurisdictional and culturally sensitive disputes, projects and transactions. Throughout his professional career, Nikolai has advised on, coordinated and been instrumental in arranging substantial debt/equity capital raises across a wide range of sectors in multiple jurisdictions. His diverse commercial litigation practice includes contractual, tortious, joint-venture, partnership and shareholder disputes, trusts and offshore structures, supply of goods and services, jurisdiction and conflict of laws, international crime and civil fraud (including conspiracy, deceit, bribery, constructive trust and restitution issues), worldwide asset tracing and recovery in multi-jurisdictional commercial and high-value matrimonial cases, urgent procedural applications (including stay of proceedings, anti-suit injunctions, worldwide freezing, search and disclosure orders), enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards. Nikolai is an experienced corporate finance and capital markets lawyer (solicitor) who, before being called to the Commercial Bar, worked with a leading global London City-based law firm. Driven by his clients’ needs, Nikolai’s unique legal practice combines traditional contentious and advisory work (including commercial negotiations and dispute prevention) across a wide range of sectors, encompassing industry-shifting and first-to-market emerging technologies, blockchain, AI, renewable energy, corporate finance and capital markets (including M&A, pre-IPO restructurings, IPOs, rights issues, private placements and follow-on offerings of all sizes), media, banking, real estate, infrastructure, natural resources, commodities and taxation. Nikolai is passionate about seeking innovative solutions to his clients’ most challenging legal and business needs. He has experience of coordinating and leading multiple legal and consulting teams worldwide, requiring creative strategic vision and an in-depth understanding of jurisdictions where cases may be won or lost. In complex cross-border matters, solicitors and clients value Nikolai’s astute commercial pragmatism, practical judgement, his appreciation of strategic (and cultural) nuances, combining his legal knowledge with the ability to think laterally to achieve his clients’ business objectives. Clients also appreciate his personable nature, responsiveness, versatility, attentiveness to their needs and ability to articulate highly complex legal concepts in simple and understandable terms. International Arbitration Nikolai is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb). He has advised and acted for clients across multiple industries and jurisdictions in matters requiring a high degree of commercial awareness in culturally sensitive environments. Nikolai accepts instructions to sit as arbitrator in commercial arbitrations or to act as arbitration counsel in ad hoc and institutional arbitrations (e.g. ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC, ICAC). He acts in arbitrations under the principal arbitral rules, including ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC and UNCITRAL. Selected Experience Advising Kazakh and Chinese state oil firms on the acquisition of one of the largest Kazakh upstream enterprises as part of a $10bn ‘loan for oil’ deal. Acting for a co-defendant in a $6bn dispute involving a state-owned Central Asian Bank. Advising a multinational renewable energy enterprise on a $1bn IPO with a private placement and subsequent rights issue. Advising the government of Turkey on its sovereign note issuance programme. Advising a prominent billionaire investor on the takeover of a leading European football club. Advising a leading international bank on a €400m Sukuk issuance. Advising an art dealer on the acquisition of several Old Masters, raising complex issues around Nazi-looted art, provenance and title. Advising the ex-wife of a prominent billionaire in connection with obtaining (an additional) financial remedy by ‘re-opening’ her foreign divorce under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Advising numerous ultra-high-net-worth individuals worldwide on various ‘private client’ matters, including wealth management, trusts, taxation, investments and philanthropy. Public Engagements A regular public speaker and media commentator, Nikolai often addresses audiences at leading international forums. He is available for interview via his chambers. Publications Nikolai has written articles on international corporate governance, international commercial arbitration, human rights, legal philosophy and bioethics which have been published in leading legal journals, including International Company and Commercial Law Review (Sweet & Maxwell) and the Journal of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Regarded as an authority on a variety of subjects, he is often cited in law books and renowned legal journals, including Harvard International Law Journal, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Society of Legal Scholars (Cambridge University Press). Interests Nikolai’s leisure interests include running (he is known as ‘the fastest barrister’ and was the winner of the 100m Chariots of Fire Sprint hosted by the Inner Temple to celebrate Harold Abrahams’ iconic win at the 1924 Paris Olympics), travelling, hiking, mountain climbing, speed skating, as well as the English countryside, oriental ceramics, music and art. Commercial Nikolai has extensive experience in a broad spectrum of complex cross-border commercial litigation, with particular expertise in joint ventures, civil fraud, banking & finance, contractual disputes, commodities, various injunctive relief, asset tracing and recovery, company and partnership (including insolvency), trusts and claims against fiduciaries and trustees, and commercial property disputes. International Commercial Litigation Acting for a co-defendant in a $6bn dispute involving a state-owned Central Asian Bank. Acting for a leading German re-insurance company in various re-insurance claims. Advising an international entrepreneur in his claim against a trading house in respect of losses arising from FX trading. Acting for the owner of a leading Russian supermarket chain in a breach of contract action against former business partners, including advice on obtaining a worldwide freezing order and other interim relief. Advising a leading Irish bank in a dishonoured Letter of Credit dispute with an Indian counterparty. Advising an Icelandic bank on obtaining freezing injunctions. Corporate Finance Advising Kazakh and Chinese state oil firms on the acquisition of one of the largest Kazakh upstream enterprises as part of a $10bn ‘loan for oil’ deal. Advising a multinational renewable energy enterprise on a $1bn IPO with a private placement and subsequent rights issue. Advising a $1bn+ investor on the takeover of a leading European football club. Advising a London-listed Russian mining and exploration company on the acquisition of a major gold mine in South-eastern Russia. Advising a London-listed South American petroleum production and development company on fulfilling compliance requirements on the London Stock Exchange. Advising a London-listed media technologies corporation on an issuance of loan notes. Banking & Finance Advising a leading international bank on a €400m Sukuk issuance. Advising the government of Turkey on its sovereign note issuance programme. Advising on a major financing of twenty fixed-wing aircraft for a Middle Eastern airline. Advising a leading UK bank on the financing of three fixed-wing aircraft and two Eurocopters. Art & Artefacts Advising an art collector on the sale of a painting by Amedeo Modigliani raising complex aspects of provenance. Advising an art investor on the acquisition of a painting by Anthony van Dyck and dealing with issues of attribution and provenance. Advising an art dealer on the sale of a famous Andy Warhol artwork. Advising an art dealer on the acquisition of several Old Masters, raising complex issues around Nazi-looted art, provenance and title. Advising an art collector and investor in his title dispute with a leading international gallery concerning two semi-precious stone sculptures. Advising a leading international art gallery in its joint venture with an art collector and artist. Advising an artist on the recovery of his artworks following a dispute with an international gallery. Advising an art investor on the acquisition of a rare Persian carpet and rare blue diamond. Taxation Advising a consortium of leading European banks on tax implications relating to a number of aircraft sale and leaseback arrangements. Advising a major international corporation on corporate reorganisation and setting up tax-efficient business structures. Advising a Russian zinc producer on taxation aspects relating to its winding-up process. Advising various ultra-high-net-worth individuals on setting up tax efficient business- and asset-holding structures. Construction and Engineering Nikolai’s legal practice includes litigation, arbitration, advocacy and advisory work in disputes and commercial projects relating to technology, construction, engineering, energy and renewable resources. Advising a private consortium on the syndication of a €2.2bn loan for the Elefsina-Korinthos-Patras-Pyrgos-Tsakona toll road, one of Greece's largest infrastructure projects. Advising a major Asian electricity distribution company on the restructuring and relocation of assets. Advising a major global hotel chain on a real estate portfolio restructuring, including advice on new property development projects. Advising a Namibian desalination plant on its decommissioning process and international asset sale. Advising a real estate investor on the acquisition of a multimillion-pound London-based commercial real estate portfolio, including units under construction. Family Nikolai has extensive experience of representing parties in the full range of financial remedies arising out of the breakdown of relationships between married and unmarried couples. These matters often involve complex international asset tracing and recovery, and working with forensic accountants and detectives in locating and freezing hidden matrimonial assets held through complicated webs of corporate entities, trusts and family members. He is often instructed to represent high-net-worth parties seeking to protect their assets on divorce or separation, which requires emotional sensitivity combined with robust tactical arguments to achieve the client’s objectives. Advising the wife of a Russian billionaire in respect of her entitlement on divorce, as well as complex aspects relating to matrimonial asset tracing and recovery. Advising the common-law wife of a Middle Eastern billionaire and securing a successful multi-million US dollar settlement following his initial refusal to undertake paternity testing to prove his fatherhood of her son. Advising a prominent international entrepreneur on protecting his financial interests following aggressive demands made by his wife during their divorce. Advising a wife in a high-profile multimillion-pound divorce settlement following successful tracing and recovery of assets belonging to her husband. Advising the ex-wife of a prominent billionaire in connection with obtaining (an additional) financial remedy by ‘re-opening’ her foreign divorce under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Advising numerous prominent clients on complex issues pertaining to pre- and post-nuptial agreements before, during and after divorce. Crime Nikolai often represents reputationally-sensitive, high-net-worth individuals (and their family members), company directors and international corporations in domestic and international crime, complex cross-border corporate crime and fraud, corruption, bribery, money laundering, serious financial crime, asset freezing orders and confiscation proceedings. Successfully defending (with Iain Morley KC) a foreign client who was charged with murder as a co-defendant and securing his full acquittal while the other co-defendant, represented by another KC, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Advising a Russian party on procedural issues in a prominent CIS banking criminal fraud litigation. Successfully defending a foreign client accused of rape, resulting in all charges against him being dropped without the case going to a full trial. Advising an African mining company in a dispute relating to a bribery allegation.

Oliver Ingham

Overview Oliver Ingham is an experienced trial advocate in both the Chancery and Family Division of the High Court, and specialises in the broad range of traditional and commercial Chancery work. In particular, Oliver regularly appears in both divisions representing parties to claims brought under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 “The 1975 Act”. Oliver is one of four barristers nominated by Chambers & Partners High Net Worth for the "Star Junior" award of 2024, with the winner being announced on 11 July 2024 at the National Gallery. Oliver is also nominated for Chancery Junior of the Year 2024 by Legal 500, to be announced in September. Oliver is widely recognised for his expertise and is highly regarded as a leading junior/leading individual in the three main Directories/League Tables and Rankings as recommended counsel for matters that include Chancery (particularly claims brought under the Inheritance Act 1975 and estate-related litigation under CPR 64), Tax, Probate and Private Client work. Legal 500 (London Bar) - Private Client - Trusts and Probate - Tier 1), Oliver was named a “Rising Star”. Legal 500 (Midlands Bar) - Chancery, Tax and Probate, Oliver is likewise ranked highly (Tier 1) and again was also named as a “Rising Star” by them. Chambers and Partners, High Net Worth Guide (Chancery: Traditional - London Bar), Oliver is ranked/recommended as “up and coming” by them. Chambers and Partners, UK Bar, London (Chancery: Traditional) - Oliver is recommended as “up and coming" in this field. Recent highlights include acting in the widely covered Kaur v Estate of Karnail Singh & Ors [2023] EWHC 304, the widely reported/significant appeal in the Supreme Court Hirachand [2022] 1 WLR 1162, and tangentially similar case/appeal in Jassall v Shah [2021] EWHC 3552 (Ch) which significantly changed the law regarding the treatment of costs during as opposed to after the event. In Kaur v Singh [2023] EWHC 304 Mr Justice Peel said of Oliver that he presented the case with "impeccable efficiency, enabling the court to get to grips swiftly with the factual background, issues, legal principles and suggested outcome", and described his conduct of the case "exemplary". In Baxter v Todd [2019] EWHC 1959 the Court noted that “[His] performance was first class…really first class” and that “[He] argued [his] case with very considerable skill”. Oliver predominantly practices in London, as well as the Midlands (particularly from our Birmingham Centre) insofar as his Probate/Islamic Finance practice is concerned and has appeared in the Business and Property Courts in Bristol, Birmingham and Manchester. Oliver is therefore also used to appearing in the Chancery Division in District Registries other than London. Oliver specialises particularly in representing Sikh and Muslim communities in probate disputes, and many of his cases have a strong cultural/ religious component to them. Oliver has a keen interest in the Muslim and Sikh faiths, which inform his work. Most recently, Oliver studied Shari'a Law at the University of Edinburgh and is increasingly instructed on matters concerning Islamic finance (particularly as it pertains to Inheritance) and can represent claimants and defendants at the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal and at Court on a wide variety of matters related to Shari'a Law. Oliver is an affiliate of the Society of Trusts and Estates Practitioners and can advise on non-contentious probate matters, including in relation to estate planning. Oliver also undertakes a wide variety of commercial chancery work, including commercial disputes where there is a strong emphasis on equitable relief/ breach of trust. Oliver also has an interest in costs-only probate, insolvency and commercial proceedings, (particularly detailed assessment proceedings in the Senior Courts costs office). Reported cases Kaur v Estate of Karnail Singh & Ors [2023] EWHC 304; [2023] 2 WLUK 214 Oliver acted for the successful Claimant in the case Kaur v Estate of Karnail Singh & Ors [2023] EWHC 304 (Fam) where the Mrs Kaur was excluded from her husband’s Will notwithstanding a marriage of 66 years. The Deceased excluded his wife and four daughters because the he wished to leave his estate solely down the male line. The Judgment secured is worth nearly £1,000,000. Riaz v Riaz and Ors (Insolvent Administration Order) [2022] EWHC Ch 229 Oliver successfully obtained an Insolvent Administration Order on behalf of the petitioning creditor/beneficiary of an Estate. The proceedings were contentious, and involved five Counsel. Clarification was given on the legal principles, including when the lower or higher burden of proof viz Insolvency applies. Hirachand v Hirachd [2021] EWCA Civ 1498; [2022] 1 W.L.R. 1162; {2022] 1 F.C.R. 757;[2022] W.T.L.R. 185 This case found for the first time that a Court could order an estate to pay for a CFA uplift as part of an award under the Inheritance Act 1975. Further, an award was made by video link in circumstances where the defendant (who was unrepresented) a profoundly deaf and disabled 87 year old woman who could not hear or see what was going on. The defendant had been debarred from defending the claim. Since this decision was handed down, it has become commonplace for claimants to now claim entitlement to be paid a CFA uplift in most 1975 Act claims that come before the chancery or family division of the High Court. Oliver was instructed to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found that CFA uplifts were recoverable from an estate. Gitto Estates Ltd (t/a Horizon Properties) v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC (QB) 1997; WLUK 175 Oliver acted for the successful application for an injunction restraining interference with the proprietary rights of the claimant. Hanger Holdings v Perlake Corporation SA & Anor [2021] EWHC 81 (Ch) Oliver represented the defendant pre-trial (including settling the pleadings) in relation to the allegation that a website domain name (blackjack.com) was held on trust by the defendant. The case confirmed for the first time that a domain name is intangible property which can be subject to equitable interests/held on trust. Williams v Nu Design and Build [2021] EWHC 197; [2021] 1 WLUK 148 Oliver successfully defeated an application for summary judgment in circumstances where the claimant sought to persuade the court that a clause of a contract was unreasonable pursuant to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. The court held that it was generally inappropriate to summarily determine reasonableness before liability had been established, because the court would necessarily need to know what liability was sought to be excluded under the term. Re H [2020] EWHC 1134 (Fam) ;[2020] 2 F.L.R. 561; [2020] W.T.L.R. 479 [2020] C.L.Y. 1773 Oliver is instructed in the appeal of this decision to the Court of Appeal on behalf of the appellant/beneficiary. The Court of Appeal will consider whether the High Court erred in law when awarding the claimant her CFA uplift. HCQ Sarl v Terre Primitive Limited [2019] EWHC 2556 (Ch); [2019] WLUK 385 (before Norris J) Oliver successfully represented the claimant in obtaining an injunction restraining the holding of a meeting/placement of the company into members voluntary liquidation (MVL). The case set out the principles to be applied when one seeks to injunct a company's members from placing the company into MVL. Premiair Areospace v Foley [2019] EWHC 1805 (QB) (before Whipple J) This case concerned the extent to which summary judgment should be available in cases involving dishonest assistance/knowing receipt when breach of trust is alleged. Baxter v Todd [2019] All ER 194 (Jul); [2019] EWHC 1959 (Ch) Oliver successfully represented the defendant in the trial of a will claim involving undue influence, the illegality defence and constrictive trusts. Trustees of Haie Estate v Maass [2019] All ER 175 (Jan); [2019] EWHC 95 (Ch) Oliver successfully represented the defendant trustees in a claim based in acquiescence estoppel. Pantiles Investments v Winckler [2019] All ER 134 (Mar); [2019] 2 BCLC 295 Oliver acted for the defendant in a fraudulent trading/breach of trust claim. Popely v Drukkers Solicitors [2019] EWHC 187 (QB); [2019] 2 WLUK 224 Oliver acted for the claimant in a claim for breach of confidence (and application for injunction) against solicitors who intended to use e-mails allegedly stolen from the claimant in a trial of a separate action commencing in the Chancery Division. Unreported/ Other High Court cases Re K [2021] EWHC (Ch) Oliver is acting for the Defendants to a Claim brought against an alleged Islamic Wife of the Deceased who claims to have a void marriage, and is therefore entitled to Claim against the Estate of the Deceased as if she were a spouse. The primary dispute concerns whether the Claimant had a "non-marriage" or whether the Claimant had a "void marriage". Again, this case forms part of Oliver's general Islamic Finance caseload given his specific interest in the overlap between Sharia Law and Probate. Oliver is likely to act as sole Counsel in respect of both a preliminary issue trial regarding eligibility, as well as any substantive trial which come before the High Court should the Claimant be found to have a "void Marriage". Re T [2021] EWHC (Fam) Oliver is acting as sole Counsel instructed by Adamas and Remer LLP for the Claimant minor children in a Claim brought under section 10 of the Inheritance Act 1975 to set aside transfers made by the Deceased to his Father deliberately before death (with a view, it is said, to putting his assets beyond reach of the Claimants). Oliver will represent the Claimants in a preliminary issue trial in respect of the application under section 10, and any Judgment is likely to be of interest given that it will be the first time the power under section 10 of the 1975 Act is specifically considered along-side the remedies provided by the Insolvency Act. Premiair v Privaero [2019] EWHC 197 (QB) (Queen’s Bench Division, led by Lord Marks KC) Oliver acted as junior counsel for the claimant in a fraud/dishonest assistance/knowing receipt claim. Vitillo v Riddiough [2020] EWHC 187 (Ch) Oliver acted for the successful spousal claimant in respect of a claim brought against a £1,400,000 estate (in which the claimant obtained nearly all the assets in the estate). A v I and Ors [2020] (Chancery Division) Oliver represented a defendant beneficiary in a claim brought against a £2,000,000 estate by cohabitant claimants. J v P [2020] (Chancery Division) Oliver represented the claimant in a will challenge (capacity) brought against a £800,000 Estate. Corona v Corona [2019] (Family Division) Oliver acted for the successful spousal claimant in respect of a claim brought against a £750,000 estate. Deutsche Leasing Limited v Zaskin College [2018] EWHC 110 (QBD) Oliver acted for the defendant in respect of a claim for breach of contract concerning the supply of CNC machines. Wilson v Lassman (No 2) [2017] EWHC 957 (Ch) Oliver acted for the adult child claimant in a claim bought out of time under section 4. Kapadia v Falayie [2017] EWHC 2030 (Ch) Oliver acted for the successful defendant in a claim regarding relief from forfeiture (which also contained allegations that the claim was an abuse of process). W v F [2017] EWHC 291 (Fam) Oliver acted as sole counsel on behalf of the claimant in an adult-child claim under the 1975 Act brought in respect of a £1,700,000 estate. Gao v Atwal [2017] EWHC 2011 (Ch) Oliver represented the successful defendant in a claim concerning prescription/rights of way. Hume v Jackson [2017] (Chancery Division, Manchester) Oliver represented the sole beneficiary of a £1,300,000 estate in his defence of a claim brought by a co-habitant under the 1975 Act. Ball v Jackson and ors [2016] EWHC 88 (Ch) Oliver represented the successful claimant in a Part 64 claim concerning the construction of a will, as well as a dispute over the propriety of a prospective costs order. Work as a Junior: Oliver has regularly worked as junior counsel being led by a variety of King's Counsel. Oliver was recently led by Brie Stephens-Hoare KC in Hirachand (Court of Appeal) and in a dispute in the Chancery Division regarding a claim worth £7,000,000 brought by one estate against another estate. Oliver is also currently being led by Geoffrey Cox KC in a high value property matter. Oliver has previously been led by Geraint Jones KC in a Chancery Division claim regarding allegations of tortious conspiracy by a chain of gentleman’s clubs. Oliver has previously also been led by David Berkeley KC in a partnership dispute, and by Lord Jonathan Marks KC in a high-value Breach of Trust Claim. Property and Estates Probate Oliver is an experienced trial advocate insofar as litigation under the Inheritance Act 1975 is concerned (the core focus of his practice) both in the Chancery and Family Division". Oliver has been described as a "go-to" junior Counsel in respect of Claims litigated under the Inheritance Act 1975, and was named as Junior Equity and Trusts Lawyer of the Year in the ACQ5 Legal Awards (UK) 2020. Oliver is also recognised and highly ranked in traditional Chancery/Property and Estates by the Legal 500 (Tier 1), Chambers and Partners and C&P High Net Worth, as well as being named a 'Rising Star" in London and Midlands (Chancery Tax and Probate). Recent representative examples include: Hirachand v Hirachand ("Re H") [2020] EWHC (Fam) 1134 This case found for the first time that a Court could order an estate to pay for a CFA uplift as part of an award under the Inheritance Act 1975. Further, an award was made by video link in circumstances where the defendant (who was unrepresented) a profoundly deaf and disabled 87 year old woman who could not hear or see what was going on. The defendant had been debarred from defending the claim. Since this decision was handed down, it has become commonplace for claimants to now claim entitlement to be paid a CFA uplift in most 1975 Act claims that come before the chancery or family division of the High Court. Oliver was instructed to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. Oliver is acting for the Appellant who obtained permission to appeal on all grounds raised. Oliver is led by Brie Stevens-Hoare KC. SL v JL (Family Division, Ongoing) - Spousal 1975 Act claim in circumstances were will only provided for life interest in FMH. Re A (Inheritance Act Claim)(Family Division, Ongoing) - Defending a 1975 Act claim by a spouse on behalf of an adult child sole beneficiary. H v H (Family Division (Leeds)) Ongoing - Adult Child 1975 Act Claim where claimant has severe mental health difficulties. CA v BD (Chancery Division, Ongoing) Derivative claim brought by beneficiaries of one estate against the executor of another. claimants are adopting the Vanderpitt procedure. Also concerns S50 application to remove executor. Trustees of Haie Estate v Christian Maass [2019] EWHC (Ch) 1129 Successfully represented the trustees in a four day trial before Mr Richard Meade KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) concerning a claim brought on the basis of acquiescence estoppel. The judgment resolved some uncertainty regarding the circumstances that such a claim might be made out, and clarified the exceptionality of this nature of relief. Washington v Downie [2018] EWHC 2210 (Ch) (Falk J) The judgment concerned the extent to which estate accounts should be disclosed to third parties who are not beneficiaries under the will, but who claim to be under other rival wills. It was held that estate accounts need not disclosable in this circumstance. A person who wishes to prove a different will and revoke a grant of probate can do so without sight of estate accounts. Wilson v Lassman (No 2) EWCH Ch 85 (Master Bowles) (Adult Child/Section 4 application) Abbasi v Abassi [2017] EWCH Ch (s50 application to remove an executor) Ball v Jackson [2016] EWCH Ch (Pelling J) (Detailed assessment of executor-solicitor’s costs) Green v Green [2017] EWCH Ch (Application under Section 50 to remove executor) P v S (Ongoing) (Chancery Division) (Application under s116 to pass over/Beddoes Relief/third party breach of trust claim arising out of an alleged abuse of lasting power of attorney) Salmon v Green [2017] (Non-family dependent (Carer) 1975 Act claim) Hulme v Estate of Anthony Ball [2016] EWCH (Fam) (Defending beneficiaries against a co-habitant 1975 Act claim against a £1.3mil estate) F v A (Ongoing) (High Court, Chancery Division) (Co-habitant 1975 Act claim against a £2,000,000 estate) V v A (Ongoing) (High Court, Chancery Division) (Spousal 1975 Act claim against a £1,500,000 estate) Smith v A (Ongoing) (Chancery Division) (Adult Child 1975 Act claim involving section 4 and 9 application) W v Y (Ongoing) (High Court, Family Division) (Adult Child 1975 Act claim, 4 day trial before MacDonald J) A v B (Ongoing) (Central London CC) (Adult Child 1975 Act claim, 5 day trial before HHJ Madge) C v C (Ongoing) (Central London CC) (Defending Minor Child 1975 Act claim against £500,000 estate) Re M (Ongoing) (Central London CC) (Adult Child 1975 Act claim, section 4 application) Re G (Ongoing) (Central London CC) (Co-habitant 1975 Act claim against £700,000 estate) RE H (Ongoing) (Manchester CC) (Defending Co-habitant 1975 Act claim against £1,200,000 estate) RE A (Ongoing) (Winchester CC) (Adult Child 1975 Act claim against a small estate (£400,000) Re PNG Trust (Ongoing) (High Court, Chancery Division) (Part 64 claim/construction claim) Re X Estate (Ongoing) (High Court, Chancery Division)(Part 64 claim/account and inquiry) Kaur v Dhaliwal [2014] EWCA 1991 Ch; [2014] All ER (D) 164 (Jun) (Co-habitant 1975 Act appeal concerning the interpretation of “2 years” (as Martin Young’s Pupil assisting post-appeal) Personal Representative of the Estate of ED v Personal Representative of the Estate of JF [2018] EWHC (Ch) Acting for a personal representative in a claim to set aside a loan agreement, along with various claims under the Solicitors Act 1974 RC v BC [2018] EWHC (Fam) Acting as sole counsel for a spousal claimant against a will which disposed of her husband’s entire estate (including the matrimonial home) without making any provision for his wife Re T, Central London County Court (ongoing) Acting for a co-habitant claimant in an application under Section 9 (to sever a joint tenancy of the quasi-matrimonial home) and 10 (to set aside transfers intended to defeat her claim) Re C, High Court, Family Division (ongoing): Acting for a severely disabled adult child claimant in a claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance Act 1975 Re O, Central London County Court (ongoing) Acting for a co-habitant claimant under the Inheritance Act 1975, where a preliminary issue concerns the claimant’s eligibility to make a claim under section 1(1A) due to allegations that the relationship was “polyamorous” and therefore not akin to marriage Estate of A v Estate of S, High Court, Chancery Division (ongoing) Acting for the claimant in a constructive trust/estoppel claim/ claim to remove an executor, where it alleged that a trust existed over property owned by two deceased persons. The claim is by beneficiaries of the estate of A, who bring a derivative (or “Vanderpitt”) claim against the estate of S, on the basis that the two estates share the same personal representative. Oliver also has a keen interest in costs-only probate work. In particular he has acted in relation to the detailed assessment of executor-solicitor costs in the Senior Courts Costs Office and enjoys advising about the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs of estate administration. In particular, Oliver has an interest in the assessment of third party costs by way of account and inquiry (using the procedure in Tim Morris Interiors v Akin Gump) and in the application of the "one fifth" rule to SCCO proceedings. Oliver occasionally acts on a CFA basis (usually in 1975 Act Claims involving Spouses or Co-habitants) and is always pleased to discuss options. Commercial Oliver’s primary commercial interest is in financial services and banking. Prior to coming to the bar Oliver worked as a Risk Analyst with a particular focus on AIM and secondary markets. Oliver is currently instructed on two commercial court matters in his own right: A £1,000,000 commercial fraud claim against a former de facto director relating to the illicit diversion of business away from the company to a competitor A £1,200,000 claim (brought under FSMA 2000) in relation to a dispute over unsecured bond agreements (more particularly a civil action for breach of the COBS rules) Oliver is also currently acting on a number of matters in the Chancery Division, including: Defending a £1,000,000 claim relating to a secured finance agreement on the basis of illegality and FSMA 2000 A claim against a private share market for damages exceeding £1,000,000 relating to a refusal to list shares. Oliver occasionally appears in the Queen’s Bench Division, most recently in relation to a claim involving breach of confidence/privacy/libel (in a commercial context). Oliver has also appeared in the Technology and Construction Court in disputes where there is a “chancery” element to the case. The following cases are examples of Oliver’s recent/on-going commercial work: Hangar Holdings v Perlake [2021] Oliver represented the defendant pre-trial (including settling the pleadings) in relation to the allegation that a website domain name (blackjack.com) was held on trust by the defendant. The case confirmed for the first time that a domain name is intangible property which can be subject to equitable interests/held on trust. Toucan Energy Holdings Limited Toucan Gen Co Limited v Wirsol Energy Limited [2021] EWHC 895 (Comm); [2021] 4 WLUK 35 Oliver acted in a junior capacity assisting in relation to the litigation of a dispute worth £7,000,000 within the context of the telecoms industry. Avonwick v Azito Holdings [2020] EWHC 1844 (Comm) | [2020] 7 WLUK 188 Oliver was instructed by Quinn Emanuel LLP to assist in a junior capacity in relation to litigation arising over a multi-billion pound deal in which fraud and misrepresentation/and unjust enrichment were relied upon. This case was described by The Lawyer as "one of the top cases litigated in 2020" as part of their annual publication of "Top 20 Cases of the Year". Premiair Areospace v Foley [2019] EWHC 1805 (QB) (before Whipple J) This case concerned the extent to which summary judgment should be available in cases involving dishonest assistance/knowing receipt when breach of trust is alleged. HCQ Sarl v Terre Primitive Limited [2019] EWHC 2556 (Ch); [2019] WLUK 385 (before Norris J) Oliver successfully represented the claimant in obtaining an injunction restraining the holding of a meeting/placement of the company into members voluntary liquidation (MVL). The case set out the principles to be applied when one seeks to injunct a company's members from placing the company into MVL. ROVOP v Install Sarl [2017] (Mercantile Court) (Moulder J) Proceedings relating to the interpretation of a settlement agreement in a £700,000 claim over international supply agreements Greenland Mining Management and ors v Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC (QB) 18 (King J) Injunction in the context of financial services X Market Technologies v Davies [2016] (Chancery Division) Abuse of process/dispute as to enforceability of contractual/liquidated damages clause Along with the cases listed above, Oliver is being lead by David Berkley KC on a solicitor/partnership dispute and assisting as one of many juniors in a large international litigation regarding the oil and gas sector. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Oliver is instructed in the upcoming trial of two Companies Court actions relating to preferences, director misfeasance and alleged fraud. More generally: Oliver regularly attends Winding-Up Court (including the trial of disputed debt petitions) and attends the Interim Applications Court to obtain injunctions restraining presentation of a petition Public examinations Bankruptcy petitions (including the trial of whether offers have been unreasonably refused, and petitions with an international element) Insolvency claims in the context of probate Oliver has a keen interest in costs-only insolvency work. Recently Oliver has advised in relation to an application to set aside default costs certificates issued in insolvency proceedings and has advised on the subsequent detailed assessment proceedings (inter-parties and trustee costs) before the SCCO. Oliver is happy to advise on the drafting and preparation of costs proceedings (points of objection/precedent A/R etc).

Patrick Heneghan

Overview Patrick Heneghan is an experienced commercial barrister and deputy head of our commercial group. Patrick has extensive experience of a wide range of commercial disputes ranging from construction to conflict of laws, breach of contract claims to company law disputes and shareholder actions, professional negligence to insurance, partnership disputes to sale of goods and public international law disputes to infringements of competition law. These disputes cover a wide variety of different industry sectors including construction, energy, oil and gas, mining, electricity generation, finance, trading, ship building, technology, aviation, property development, utilities, fine art, telecoms, sport and pharmaceuticals. In addition to his experience before the English courts, Patrick has a particular specialism in international arbitration and substantial experience of other dispute resolution mechanisms including adjudication, expert determination, dispute resolution boards and mediation. Identified as a “rising star” in the Guide to the World’s Leading Experts in Commercial Arbitration, Patrick has been recommended in the leading legal directories including the Legal 500, where he was praised by clients for “achieving results” and providing “technically sound advice”, and Chambers & Partners, where he was described as “superb” and a “quality individual.” Patrick’s work was also recognised in the Financial Times’ “Innovative Lawyers Report" in 2014 where one of his matters was “Highly Commended” in the dispute’s resolution field. Before joining 3PB, for many years Patrick was a Partner and advocate in the international arbitration and litigation department of a major New York law firm. More recently Patrick assisted retired High Court Judge Sir William Blackburne with appeals in relation to a high-profile banking remediation scheme arising out of the 2008 financial crisis. Published extensively, Patrick was the joint-general editor of the 4th edition and 5th editions of Thomson Reuters’ Arbitration World. He is regularly invited to speak at conferences and symposia. Patrick accepts appointments as arbitrator, adjudicator and mediator. Publications and presentations Recent presentations include: “Adjudication: Does Size Matter?”, 3PB 20th Annual Construction Law Seminar (2023) “What to derive from recent applications concerning derivative claims?”, Thought Leaders 4 Disputes Webinar (2023) “Running a successful arbitration: clauses, procedure, tactics, funding and ATE”, 3PB Bristol Arbitration Seminar in association with the Bristol Law Society (2022) “The Use and Abuse of Expert Witness Evidence”, 3PB 19th Annual Construction Law Seminar (2022) “The Court’s approach to waivers and estoppels, and how to protect yourself contractually”, by Patrick Heneghan of 3PB Barristers (2022) Publications include: “Adjudication: Does size and/or complexity matter? The decision in Home Group Limited v MPS Housing Limited [2023] EWHC 1946 (TCC)” (2024) 35 1 Cons.Law General Editor of Arbitration World, 5th Edition, and co-author of the chapter on England and Wales “Expert Determination”, PLC Website “Hot Topic: International Dispute Resolution Involving Russian and CIS Companies”, Corporate Disputes Magazine Overview chapter of "Getting the Deal Through", Private Anti-Trust Litigation, Global Competition Review “Grexit concerns: how to safeguard asset value”, International Finance Law Review General Editor of Arbitration World, 4th Edition, and co-author of the chapter on England and Wales “The Clawback – Can Arbitration Help Greek Bondholders” Gain Redress?”, Legal Week “Competition Law Damages Actions in the EU”, Law and Finance Magazine “Violating the Confessional Seal – Disclosure of leniency materials in competition law damages actions in the EU”, Law and Finance Magazine “Disclosure Question Ripples Both Sides of the pond”, Law 360 "Dallah v Pakistan: vive la différence”, Global Arbitration Review “Arbitrator ethics: developments”, Global Arbitration Europe and Middle Eastern Review “Arbitration panel holds the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty protects foreign energy sector investments in former Soviet Union”, Global Arbitration Review Construction and Engineering Patrick Heneghan has considerable experience of engineering and construction disputes including professional negligence claims. He is a member of the Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) Users Committee and regularly advises and acts in relation to disputes arising under the standard form contract suites (including JCT, NEC and FIDIC) and professional engagements (including RIBA PSC, ACE PSA and RICS SFCA). As well as his experience in the Business and Property Courts in the UK (including the TCC), Patrick has a particular specialisation in international arbitration, acting for clients in variety of seats and under all the major institutional rules. Patrick represents clients in adjudications under the 1996 Act and in respect of the enforcement of adjudicator awards. He also accepts appointments as adjudicator. Representative matters include acting for: A housing association in arbitration proceedings under the JCT Construction Industry Model Arbitration Rules concerning a multi-million pound claim against its design and build contractor in relation to defective cladding and other fire safety related matters. The UK subsidiary of a multi-national contractor specialising in the design and construction of sports stadia in an adjudication of a professional negligence claim. The claim was brought by a championship football club in relation to a multi-million pound project to refurbish a historic stand and construct new facilities at its home ground. The dispute involved consideration of the compliance of the design with the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds (the “Green Guide”) and included claims for lost ticket sales and revenue from hospitality facilities and other consequential losses. A leading UK architectural practice specialising in social housing in a series of three adjudications against a public authority in relation to various disputes arising out of a multi-million pound project to refurbish and significantly increase the safety and energy efficiency of one of London’s largest and most high-profile social housing estates. A developer in a professional negligence claim against an engineering company in relation to a sewer survey that failed to identify correctly the location of a major sewer crossing a development site. The sewer was subsequently hit during piling operations causing significant direct and consequential loss. One of the UK’s oldest housing associations in respect of a multi-million pound arbitration claim under the LCIA Rules against a private developer for breach of a joint venture agreement relating to a £120 million project to develop a mixed private and social housing project in London. The owner of a 1.2 GW combined-cycle gas-fired power station, at the time one of the largest non-recourse financed power projects in Europe, against its design and build contractor in ad hoc arbitration proceedings seated in London. The owner successfully claimed significant liquidated damages for delay and defended counterclaims for extensions of time and loss and expense. A US company in an ICC arbitration, seated in Paris, in relation to disputes arising out of a contract for the supply of turbine, generator and associated equipment for the construction of a single-cycle dual-fuel power station in Kuwait. Matters in dispute included whether or not the equipment supplied was in accordance with the contractual requirements and the supplier’s other obligations to ensure that the “back starting” and “black starting” equipment worked at the standard voltage in Kuwait. The British subsidiary of a US company in relation to the wrongful termination of the hire of what was, at the time, the world’s largest harsh environment jack-up rig, the Rowan Gorilla V, due to claims that various pieces of equipment on board were defective and unsafe. A European electricity company in ICC arbitration proceedings in Stockholm in relation to disputes arising under a long-term energy supply and off-take agreement concerning the commissioning of 3 x 400MW turbines and associated performance bonuses. A British engineering company in relation to disputes arising out of the delay and costs incurred by the contractor in meeting employer requirements in relation to the construction of the Tsing Ma Bridge in Hong Kong, one of the world’s longest suspension bridges. An Asian subsidiary of a US company in ICC arbitration proceedings in Singapore in relation to disputes arising from a project to design and build a congestion charging system. One of India’s leading real estate developers in a series of connected LCIA arbitrations seated in London in respect of disputes arising out of a slum rehabilitation development project in India. These disputes included claims that the developer had failed to achieve certain milestones for the project by the stipulated dates as a result of force majeure. Commercial Patrick Heneghan has a broad commercial practice covering a wide range of company/commercial matters and industry sectors and frequently involving multiple jurisdictions and dispute resolution mechanisms. Patrick is deputy head of our commercial group. Patrick is typically instructed in relation to: Commercial contractual disputes Disputes in relation to contracts for the supply of goods and services Professional negligence claims Insurance claims Disputes arising under joint ventures Finance disputes Breaches of director’s duties Shareholder and partnership disputes, and Infringements of competition law. As well as his experience in the Business and Property Courts in the UK (including the Commercial Court), Patrick has a particular interest in international arbitration. Patrick has acted for clients in variety of European, Asian, African and Middle Eastern seats and under all the major institutional rules (including ICC, LCIA, AAA/ICDR, SCC, HKIAC, DIAC, UNCITRAL and ICSID). These disputes have covered not only commercial claims but also investor state disputes. Patrick’s work in this area has been recognised in the leading legal directories and also by the Financial Times’ in its “Innovative Lawyers Report". Published extensively in the field of international arbitration, Patrick was the joint-general editor of the 4th edition and 5th editions of Thomson Reuters’ Arbitration World. Patrick accepts appointments as arbitrator. Recent matters include acting for: A UK plc in claims against its energy adviser and energy supplier in a multi-million pound breach of contract and professional negligence dispute relating to its energy trading activities intended to hedge its risk in relation to the conflict in Ukraine. A UK supplier in respect of a High Court claim for breach of contract brought by a high-net worth individual for the late delivery of a recreational vessel. The dispute includes claims for extensions of time and frustration arising from the delayed delivery of the vessel, and a counterclaim for losses arising from the claimant’s failure to pay the purchase price by the due dates. A claimant in respect of professional negligence claims against a number of firms of solicitors in respect of their handling of claims against a developer for defects in residential premises. A technology services provider in a dispute regarding the award of an exclusive license to the winning bidder. The dispute included a claim for breach of contract against the winning bidder arising from its decision to utilise the services of an alternative services provider and for breach of confidentiality arising from the use of the technology provider’s confidential information during the bid process. A local authority in relation to a claim for fraud against one of its service providers in respect of the cost of services provided during the COVID pandemic. Insurers in relation to a significant group litigation claim against a technology company for an anti-competitive agreement with another technology company and abuse of a dominant position in relation to auctions for web display advertising. An African airline against its Dublin based lessees in relation to the late re-delivery of two Boeing 747 aircraft due to delays arising from the certification of enhanced ground proximity warning systems. Disputes included whether the airline’s delay in redelivery caused the loss complained of by the lessees arising from the significant fall in the market value of the aircraft due to market conditions occurring after the contractual date for redelivery. An international auction house in respect of a professional negligence claim brought by the consignors of an old master painting for failing to identify that the painting was a lost painting by a better-known artist and, therefore, significantly more valuable than the auction estimate and the amount for which the painting was ultimately sold at auction. Acting for a leading bank in respect of a default by a high net worth individual under a loan agreement. This representation involved successfully obtaining freezing orders in England and Jersey and advising in respect of enforcement action in the BVI, Delaware and Jersey. Representative international arbitration matters include acting for: A global industrial company in respect of disputes arising from its interest in one of the largest open cast iron ore mines in Africa. The disputes included commercial arbitration against the co-owner, seated in Johannesburg, concerning breach of a joint ownership agreement; a claim against the government of the relevant African country for expropriation of the company’s assets under a bilateral investment treaty; and assisting in relation to judicial review proceedings before the local courts. The respondent shareholder companies in LCIA arbitration proceedings in London in relation to a dispute over control of one of the world’s largest producers and manufacturers of titanium products. The disputes concerned the exercise of put and call options in a shareholder agreement and involved obtaining anti-suit injunctions in the BVI to restrain proceedings commenced in New York, Cyprus and elsewhere in breach of an agreement to arbitrate. One of India’s leading real estate developers in a series of connected LCIA arbitrations seated in London in respect of disputes arising out of a slum rehabilitation development project in India. Minority shareholders in relation to one of Eastern Europe’s largest social online networking services in parallel arbitration and multi-jurisdictional litigation proceedings. The disputes included claims for breach of director’s duties due to the diversion of certain corporate opportunities in the form of instant messengers, minority shareholder actions (in the BVI) and a claim for breach of a shareholders’ agreement (LCIA arbitration London). A number of pharmaceutical companies and their affiliates in a series of ad hoc arbitrations, seated in London, concerning coverage disputes under Bermuda Form insurance contracts, under both New York and English law, in relation to a range of pharmaceutical products including a diabetes drug, selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, hormone replacement therapy, 4th generation oral contraceptives and the use of a new antibiotic for the treatment of children suffering from epidemic meningitis during a clinical trial in East Africa. Disputes included claims for material non-disclosure; that the injuries experienced were expected and intended by the insureds, and therefore excluded under the policies; and that costs incurred, and for which coverage was sought under the policies, related to both matters which were insured and matters which were not insured. Affiliated Asian energy companies against an oil and gas major in joined ICC arbitrations, seated in Hong Kong, in relation to disputes arising under long-term take-or-pay gas contracts. The disputes concerned two combined cycle gas fired power stations with a joint output of 1.5GW and included claims for force majeure due to the national grid operator curtailing the output of the plants. Bondholders in respect of arbitration proceedings under a bilateral investment treaty and ICC arbitration in relation to a policy of political risk insurance arising out of their investments in a Latin American country. A European electricity company in relation to disputes arising under a long-term energy supply and off-take agreement providing for arbitration under the ICC Rules in Stockholm. An African energy company in associated price review arbitrations (UNCITRAL Rules and seated Geneva) arising under a number of long-term liquid natural gas take-or-pay contracts. These disputes concerned the continuing relationship (if any) between the price of gas in the relevant market and the prices of a basket of alternative energy sources, as well as the purchaser’s own actions as the incumbent and dominant supplier of gas in the relevant market. A US energy company in an ICC arbitration, seated in Paris, in relation to disputes arising out of a contract for the supply of equipment for a single-cycle dual-fuel power station in the Middle East.

Paul Froud

Paul Froud is a barrister with a busy and diverse family law practice, with an emphasis on public law Children Act proceedings and a burgeoning private law children caseload. He joined 3PB in August 2023 from a specialist family law chambers. He acts for parents, local authorities, guardians and interveners and has appeared at all levels of the Family Court and the Court of Appeal. Paul’s practice includes cases involving non-accidental injuries, FII, neglect, substance misuse, mental health, physical & sexual abuse and domestic abuse. Reported cases include: Re Y (Leave to Oppose Adoption) [2020] EWCA Civ 1287 X and Y (Private Law – Change of Name – Termination of Parental Responsibility) [2021] EWFC B24 P (A Child), Re [2018] EWCA Civ 720 Re X [2018] EWFC B25 Family Paul Froud is a prolific family law barrister who specialises in public and private law Children Act proceedings. His practice has recently been focused on Public Law work, both complex and routine, as well as a diverse types of cases. Paul also has a burgeoning Private Law caseload and has built a very strong practice with both reported and unreported cases that are typical of barristers of many more years call. Typically, his caseload sees him appearing in cases of: Adoption and Special Guardianship Care Proceedings Child Arrangements Wardship

Peter Aeberli

Overview Peter Aeberli is a Canadian citizen, resident in the United Kingdom. He is dually qualified as Architect and Barrister and is an experienced arbitrator, mediator and adjudicator. Apart from his work as counsel, the focus of his work is dispute resolution principally, but not solely, in the construction industry. He has handled two party and multi-party disputes with values up to £8 million. He is available for and has received appointments as arbitrator, adjudicator and/or mediator by party agreement and from bodies such as the CIArb (including NHBC), the CIOB, the Construction Confederation, AICA, the RIBA, the ICE, the ICC and the Law Society. He is listed as an adjudicator on high value and prestigious projects including the London 2012 Adjudication Panel and BAA Terminal 5. He is listed on numerous panels including the FIDIC President’s list of dispute adjudicators, the ICC Canadian National Committee Panel of International Commercial Arbitrators, the ICDR (American Arbitration Association) panel of international arbitrators, the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (USA) Roster of arbitrators and mediators and Engineers’ Ireland panel of arbitrators. Prior to reading law as a scholar at Hertford College, Oxford, Peter was a project architect with the Building Design Partnership, a large multi-disciplinary consultancy, and gained experience and understanding of the different skills, both professional and contracting, needed to realise complex construction projects, including hospitals, retail development and military installations. He has a good understanding of building technology being, for a number of years, a visiting lecturer in building construction at what is now Oxford Brooks University. He remains involved in the construction industry, having served on a number of client bodies, and has engaged builders on projects of his own from time to time. He was, for a number of years in the mid 1990s a Joint Secretary of the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT). Construction and Engineering As counsel, Peter has been instructed to advise on and appear principally on construction and arbitration related matters in the Technology and Court Court (TCC) and the County Courts. He has appeared in the Court of Appeal (TWF Printers Ltd v. Interserve Project Services [2006] BLR 299). He has been instructed to draft contractual documentation including amendments to JCT contracts. He also advises and represents parties in arbitration, adjudication and mediation proceedings. Overseas work has included advising parties in Latvia and in South Africa on contractual (FIDIC) and arbitration matters. An experienced arbitrator, adjudicator and mediator, Peter receives appointments by party agreement and from bodies such as the ICC (sole arbitrator and president), LCIA (sole, presiding and wing arbitrator), FIDIC, Engineer’s Ireland, the CIArb, RICS and RIBA. Peter was invited by ICDR (American Arbitration Association) to chair a tribunal, but had to decline, for personal reasons. Projects on which Peter Aeberli has been appointed as tribunal or instructed as counsel have included port facilities in Ghana and in England; roads, sewers, including in Bulgaria; remediation of nuclear contamination; hotels and office complexes, railway rolling stock, housing; the value of projects ranging in value up to about £100 million and disputes up to about £10 million. Articles Peter’s web site, www.aeberli.com, includes a number of papers on construction law, arbitration and adjudication. Published articles, many of which can be found re-printed on the site, include: 2007: What material can an adjudicator consider; Construction Law Journal 2005: Jurisdictional Disputes under the Arbitration Act 1996: A Procedural Route Map; Arbitration International 1993: Wharf Properties and Rolled-Up Claims; Construction Law Journal 1993: Abatements, Set-Offs and Counterclaims in Arbitration Proceedings; ADR Law Journal Mediation Appointment as arbitrator, adjudicator or mediator: Peter has been appointed by party agreement and from numerous appointing bodies including the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the RIBA, the Law Society, the RICS, FIDIC and the ICC. Peter has been a mediator on in excess of 60 construction and other disputes involving both two and multi parties, some involving public bodies, and claims up to about £5 million. “Thank you very much indeed for your assistance yesterday. ... we could not have got there without your skill and persistence.” - London city solicitors. Disputes on which Peter has been appointed as arbitrator or adjudicator have involved: Legal issues and contract interpretation Development agreements PFI Projects Technical and scientific issues, such as paint, roofing, cladding, glazing, corrosion, mechanical and electrical and structural defects, fire resistance and compartmentation. Infrastructure and civil and structural engineering disputes including concrete structures, piles, roads, bridges, power stations, bio-mass facilities, airport runways, sewers, defence establishments, liquefied gas facilities, water treatment works, process engineering (biodiesel feed stock) Environmental (including nuclear) issues Marine equipment, jetty and harbour work (dredging and blasting); Railways (infrastructure, computer equipment and rolling stock) Professional negligence Delay and programming issues and disruption and delay costs Quantity surveying issues including interim and final account valuation High value/specification (up to £40 million at 2000 prices) residential properties Commercial agency agreements International commercial disputes including as arbitrator under ICC rules, LCIA rules and UNCITRAL Rules and as FIDIC dispute board. Peter has mediated numerous construction and professional negligence disputes as well as disputes outside the construction sector, including in regard to wills, landlord and tenant, sale of goods, and passing off and is identified in the Bar Council list of mediators under the most experienced category. Committee work Peter has served on committees concerned with arbitration, mediation and adjudication. He was one of the drafters of the Construction Industry Model Arbitration Rules and was involved in consultations with the Government on the Scheme for Construction Contracts. He is a member of the ICC Commission Task Force on Reducing Time/Costs in complex arbitrations. He speaks on arbitration, international arbitration, and adjudication for organisations such as BPP Professional Education and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. He is a visiting senior lecturer at Kings College, London and course director for the dispute resolution module of the MSc in Construction Law and arbitration. Neutrals - Arbitrators Peter has acted as an arbitrator on in excess of 70 construction disputes in both two party and multi-party matters, a few involving public bodies, conducting hearings from a few days to four weeks or so, disputes of up to about £10 million and projects up to about £100 million. “We would also like to convey our thanks to the Arbitrator … We look forward to working again with the Arbitrator soon.” - London city solicitors. A selection of Arbitrations on which Peter Aeberli has been appointed within the last few years include: LCIA appointment (sole arbitrator UNCITRAL rules): English Consultant; Civil law country local authority, about €200k LCIA appointment (wing arbitrator LCIA rules): Caribbean developers and contractors, multi-party dispute: Principally declaratory LCIA appointment (presiding arbitrator LCIA rules): Chinese supplier/developer, English distributor LCIA appointment (sole arbitrator UNCITRAL rules); Gibraltar and UK commercial parties ICC appointment (party nominated arbitrator). Construction of Hospitals in Africa, about £25 million in dispute ICC appointment (sole arbitrator): English motor dealer, Italian organiser of sporting activities, about €120k ICC appointment (chair): US ship-owner; Eastern European ship yard. About €300k. Withdrawn due to failure to pay advances shortly after provision of Terms of Reference and First Procedural Order ICC appointment (President): Israeli Power Company, US manufacturer, about US$ 28 million. Appointment did not proceed as before confirmed parties resolved their difficulties Agreed appointment: English local authority and contractor: About £300k Agreed appointment: English internationally renowned food emporium and contractor: About £200k Agreed appointment: English local authority and various tenants of facility subject to local authority closure orders, about £1.5million Agreed appointment: Joint Venture contractor and English local authority, PFI Schools project, about £800,000 Engineer’s Ireland Appointment. Civil law country train manufacturer and State Entity. Dispute about alleged defective trains and rolling stock: about €10 million RIBA appointment: Scottish Contractor and English Sub-contractor: Construction Dispute, about £3.5million RIBA appointment: English Developer and Contractor: about £100k claim, £400k counterclaim Engineer’s Ireland Appointment. Spanish train manufacturer and Irish State Entity. Dispute about defective supply: about €10 million Law Society Appointment: English vendor and English purchaser of property in Soho RICS appointment: English developer and contractor: About £8 million. In 2018 Peter devised and ran for the BPP law school a five day course on international arbitration for a group of visiting Chinese lawyers. Neutrals - Adjudicators Peter has acted as an adjudicator on in the region of 300 construction disputes involving claims up to about £15 million and projects up to about £100 million. "The adjudicator decided, in what both parties accepted was a thorough and well reasoned decision, …. that the defendant had to pay the claimant the sums for which I have given summary judgment.” Knight v. Urvasco [2008] EWHC 3956. “I would like to express my appreciation of the proficient approach and treatment by the one member DAB ...” (Eastern European State entity). Peter has been named or listed as an adjudicator in respect of a number of high value and prestigious contracts, including a major development by a top premier league football club, a PFI waste management project in Wakefield, a biomass facility in the north of England, a Project Agreement, PFI Construction Contract, Interface Agreement and Facilities Management Contract for social housing on a number of sites in the North of England, London Crossrail, the London 2012 Adjudication Panel and T5 (Heathrow Terminal 5). A selection of Adjudications on which Peter Aeberli has been appointed within the last few years include: CIC nomination: Transnational gas pipeline: NEC 3 amended; about £8 million claimed LCIA nomination: Station tunnelling: NEC3 amended; Account, about £12 million claimed RIBA nomination: Professional services. Bespoke terms: About £200k claimed for services CIArb nomination: Norther Ireland infrastructure: Bespoke design build and operate contract; Declaratory as to long term obligations RICS nomination: Scottish School: Alleged subsidence, about £4 million claimed; Reported at Transform Schools (North Lanarkshire) Limited v Balfour Beatty Construction Limited [2020] CSOH 19 RICS nomination: Liquefied Natural Gas plant: Bespoke terms: Termination and account About £6.5 million claimed RICS nomination: Office project: JCT as amended: Alleged glazing defects, about £650k claimed RICS nomination: Residential accommodation; Bespoke vesting agreements: About £400k claimed as damages RICS nomination: Central London offices: JCT terms; Post termination account; about £6 million claimed ICE nomination: Off-shore harbour works: FIDIC Dredging and Reclamation works: €16 million claimed ICE nomination: Ground and landscaping works: NEC3 amended: Final account, about £4 million claimed; John Doyle Construction Limited v. Erith Contractors Limited [2020] EWHC 2451 [35] ICE nomination: Airport runway: NEC3 amended: Declaratory as to time ICE nomination: Tram facility: JCT terms: Declaratory as to alleged defects ICE nomination: Process plant: Bespoke EPC contract: About £1.8 million claimed for alleged defects Agreed nomination: Residential and commercial M&E services: Bespoke terms: £6 million claimed Agreed nomination: £50 million Materials Jetty associated with construction of a nuclear facility: NEC 3 amended. Declaratory Agreed nomination: £50 million Marine Jetty: NEC3 amended entitlement to levy liquidated damages; about £1.5 million in dispute Agreed nomination: Higher education facility: Engineering services; Bespoke agreement. About £3 million claimed for delays Agreed nomination: Nuclear facility: NEC3 amended. Alleged compensation events, about £800k claimed TecSA nomination: £50 million Data Centre: JCT DB (2011) as amended: £6.5 million claimed TecSA nomination: Term contract for services: Bespoke terms: Account, about £350k claimed. Peter also devised and ran a training course for representatives in Construction Adjudication, on behalf of various professional bodes in Ireland including the RIAI, Engineers’ Ireland and the Bar Council, the Adjudication Conversion Course in preparation for the introduction of statutory adjudication of construction disputes in Ireland and, for the Irish Law Society.

Peter Jennings

Overview Experienced barrister Peter Jennings' practice is principally civil litigation with an emphasis on professional negligence, professional disciplinary and liability cases, property and commercial disputes. He also accepts instructions in related areas of public law and has acted as an Inspector for the Department of Trade and Industry in insider dealing cases. He also has considerable experience of criminal work and acts in proceeds of crime and asset forfeiture cases. Peter Jennings is an editor and author of Facts and Figures: Professional Negligence Bar Association Tables for the Calculation of Damages, was for some years an author of the Inns of Court School of Law textbook on Civil Litigation and has contributed to legal journals. He teaches advocacy, ethics and human rights for his Inn of Court, the circuit and the Bar Council. He is a former examiner for the Bar examinations and before coming to the Bar lectured at Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria. Commercial Peter has advised on and acted in a wide variety of cases in the corporate and commercial fields and handles cases from all parts of the country and in all courts. Peter is an editor and author of books on damages and civil procedure and has contributed to legal journals. His master's degree is in air law, carriage by sea and marine insurance. He is a member of the Professional Negligence Bar Association. Peter's experience of commercial and business cases includes the following kinds of work: Banking and guarantees Agency, from residential estate agents to commission on the purchase of an aircraft Carriage of goods Sale of goods, ranging from consumer transactions to agricultural equipment Work and services, including such areas as domestic interior designers, architects and builders and the development of new dental health products Copyright and passing-off Business relationships generally, from the development of golf courses in Portugal to the design of private medical insurance policies Bankruptcy Insurance, including avoidance for non-disclosure Mortgages and brokers Corporate matters Peter has acted as an Inspector for the Department of Trade and Industry in cases under the Financial Services Act. His experience of corporate work includes: Company insolvency Winding-up on the petition of a contributory Partnership matters, from restaurants to veterinary practices Professional negligence in the commercial context Peter has a special interest in professional negligence and liability. He has broad experience of cases involving the negligence of legal practitioners, both in the conduct of litigation and in handling and advising in property and commercial transactions. He has acted in cases arising out of underlying matters ranging from criminal injury compensation claims to admiralty proceedings. They include commercial matters such as mortgages and the sale of a private company. Peter has also handled cases involving the negligence of accountants in the context of tax affairs and company accounts, and has acted in cases concerning other professionals such as insurance brokers and stockbrokers. Publications and lectures Peter is an editor and author of Facts and Figures: Professional Negligence Bar Association Tables for the Calculation of Damages, was for some years an author of the Inns of Court School of Law book on Civil Procedure and has contributed to legal journals. He teaches advocacy, ethics and human rights for his Inn of Court, the circuit and the Bar Council. He is a former examiner for the Bar examinations and before coming to the Bar lectured at Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria. Indicative cases include: Stalham Engineering v Horner [2001] EWCA Civ 1586 (sale of goods) Constantinou v Aegon Insurance (UK) Ltd (1997) CA transcript 19.12.97 (insurance) Board of Governors of the National Heart and Chest Hospital v Chettle and anor (1997) CA transcript 23.10.97 (costs) Lawrence v European Credit Company v anor (1992) Times LR 29.6.92 (insolvency) Public and Regulatory Proceeds of crime and asset forfeiture Peter Jennings acts in proceeds of crime and asset forfeiture cases. He has experience of: Cash seizure cases both under the new Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and under the previous legislation Applications for restraint orders and for the variation of restraint orders Advising on related questions Proceeds of crime cases involve the civil as well as the criminal jurisdiction and can give rise to human rights issues. Peter is familiar with all of these areas. He has a principally civil practice and has written on civil litigation. He has experience of criminal work generally, both prosecuting and defending, is a member of the Criminal Bar Association and has acted as an Inspector for the Department of Trade and Industry in insider dealing cases. He is an instructor in human rights for the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and the Circuit. Regulatory compliance Professional regulation and disciplinary matters Peter has experience in the area of professional disciplinary and liability cases in the clinical and legal context and has held appointments as an Inspector for the Department of Trade and Industry in financial services matters. He also has experience of assocated professional negligence litigation. In clinical cases he has acted in disciplinary matters: before the professional conduct committee in internal proceedings before the health service authorities before employment tribunals Other areas of public law Peter has acted, both for individuals and for public authorities, in the fields of: Food safety Licensing Trading standards He has also dealt with other public law areas such as Election law.

Peter Collie

Overview Peter is a dual qualified construction professional and barrister. He has 44 years’ experience in the construction industry and has worked as legal adviser on major projects around the world. According to The Legal 500 UK Peter has acted in several international multimillion-pound disputes, he 'stands out as being a specialist' and is recommended as 'extremely knowledgeable, tactical and reliable'. After 15 years working in the construction industry, Peter was called to the Bar in 1994. Peter has acted in a wide variety of construction, building, civil engineering, mechanical and electrical engineering, water and sewage engineering, power, clean room and IT disputes, as well as in professional negligence matters involving architects, building surveyors, quantity surveyors, civil engineers, M&E engineers and project managers. Peter has significant experience of FIDIC, JCT, ICE, NEC, IChemE, IMechE and EPC contracts both in the UK and internationally as well as PFI and PPP experience both in the UK and internationally. Peter negotiated one of the first PFI Hospital projects in the 1990’s and since then has been involved in a number of disputes over PFI and PPP arrangements both in the UK and Internationally. Specialist expertise Peter has particular expertise in dispute resolution, acting mainly as an independent neutral (Arbitrator, Adjudicator, Dispute Board and Mediator) and as a party adviser. Peter has had over 400 appointments as an independent third party dispute resolver. Peter spends an increasing period of time assisting parties avoid disputes by combining his legal, neutral and practical skills to understand and then avoid risk. Other activities Peter is a visiting lecturer on the MSc in Construction Law at the University of Wolverhampton and the LLM at Nottingham Law School. He lecturers, examines and assesses candidates for the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the RICS. He lectures regularly for the CIOB, RICS, CIArb and various clients. He is the author of the CIArb’s book “Introduction to Adjudication”. He is a member of the Chartered Institute of Building’s Dispute Resolution Board. He was part of the working party revising the RICS Practice Note on Surveyor’s Acting as Expert Witnesses. He Chaired a Webinair on Procurement Law and co-presented a Webinair on the NEC3 suit of contracts. He lectures around the world on construction administration and construction law issues. He was awarded the Chartered Institute of Building’s Silver Medal for the Contract Administration Paper of the Membership Examination in 1988. He was given a Distinguished Service Award by the Dispute Resolution Board Foundation at their International Conference in May 2022. Peter Collie is an employee of Peter Collie Limited, a limited company authorised by the Bar Standards Board to provide legal services (BSB entity number 183676). Peter Collie Limited has a contractual arrangement with 3PB Barristers to provide clerking and administrative services including billing and complaints handling. Construction and Engineering Expert determination Peter has been appointed by third parties and nominating bodies such as the ICC and RICS on numerous occasions to act as “expert” to determine disputes. Adviser Peter provides strategic, detailed and tactical advice to clients, be they employers, contractors, subcontractors or banks, in relation to their rights and obligations under and relating to construction contracts around the world and in the UK. He provides written advocacy and appears as an advocate for his clients in courts and tribunals around the world. He has appeared as advocate in the TCC and the Court of Appeal as well as in arbitrations in the UK and internationally. Litigator Peter is licenced to conduct litigation by the Bar Standards Board and provides a full legal service for his clients. Examples of Peter’s expertise include: Appointed Sole Standing Dispute Board across 3 Roads Contracts in Georgia by ICC Adjudicator in a dispute over the design of the work in an EPC Waste to Power Project Appointed as Sole Expert Review Board by ICC on a US$2 Billion PPP gas-fired power station and desalination plant in Bahrain Appointed as a dispute avoider on Crossrail projects (TfL CAP) Appointed as Adjudicator on a £3million professional negligence claim on a roads project in Scotland Appointed four times as Adjudicator on a housing development in London Representing a contractor in an ICC Arbitration relating to a PPP Desalination Plant in Saudi Arabia Representing a government in an arbitration over an Infrastructure project in the Caribbean (FIDIC Contract) Advising a specialist contractor in relation to several coal fired power stations in South Africa Appointed Adjudicator twice on a £10 million dispute over Construction Halls in a Dockyard Appointed Adjudicator in relation to a professional negligence claim on a 5 star Hotel Appointed Adjudicator four times on a Combined Cycle Power Station in the UK Appointed Adjudicator on an Olympic 2012 Legacy Project Appointed as Expert on a Housing Project in Bahrain Appointed Arbitrator on a dispute in Mauritius Appointed Adjudicator on a dispute over a Waste to Energy and Composting Facility Acting as co-arbitrator (DIAC) in a dispute over the termination of a contract for a large water plant (UAE) Acting as co-arbitrator (DIAC) on a dispute over professional fees and alleged negligence (UAE) Appointed as Adjudicator on four disputes over a new Football Stadium Counsel in the first no payment or payless notices dispute enforcement in the UK Litigation representing a major contractor in a procurement dispute in the UK Appointed Adjudicator on a dispute over the Media Centre for the London 2012 Olympics Appointed as Adjudicator five times in relation to disputes under an NEC Contract Appointed Adjudicator five times in relation to disputes over the construction of a boutique hotel Appointed as Arbitrator on a dispute over professional fees Appointed as Arbitrator on a dispute over the construction of a large private residence Arbitration (FIDIC) - Representing a specialist erection company in relation to a dispute over the erection of wind turbines in the North Sea Advising a blue-chip client with regard to their contractual entitlement in relation to a large PFI Light Rail Infrastructure Project in a £45 million dispute Representing a blue-chip client in a £7 million dispute over who caused delays to a major PFI project Acting as adjudicator on a FIDIC engineering contract in a circa £10 million dispute over the construction of a power station. The dispute included termination and the correct valuation of the works Sole Dispute Board Member on a dispute over water and sewerage installation in Bulgaria Representing a contractor in relation to sewage works scrubbing plant disputes Representing the employer (HAT) in a major claim for breach of contract and professional negligence Advising a specialist international cladding contractor on a dispute over the supply and delivery of cladding for a mixed-use development, including successfully appearing as advocate to lift an injunction to prevent a bank paying under a Standby Letter of Credit Advising a main contractor in an adjudication under the NEC form of contract over the measurement and value of the works Acting as mediator in a five-party dispute in relation to high aluminium concrete structures Advising on a contract for the construction of an international airport. Mediation Dispute Boards (DB, DAB and DRB) Peter is on the FIDIC President’s Panel of Dispute Board Members. This list is currently limited to 69 people worldwide. He is a member of the Dispute Resolution Board Foundation. Peter is an international adjudicator on Dispute Adjudication Boards, Dispute Resolution Boards and Dispute Avoidance Boards. He has lectured on the benefits of Dispute Boards in the UK, India, Italy, Mauritius and Dubai. He has been appointed to dispute boards by FIDIC, RICS and the ICC. Peter enjoys acting on standing dispute boards where he can use his construction and legal skills to work with the parties to avoid disputes. Peter is a member of the TfL CAP (Conflict Avoidance Panel) and has been appointed several times to make recommendations to the Parties. Adjudication Peter is an adjudicator under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and internationally under ICC, FIDIC and DRBF procedures. Arbitration Peter is a Chartered Arbitrator and has conducted arbitrations in the UK and internationally, including in Dubai. He has been appointed as arbitrator under the Water Industry Act, DIAC, and CIArb, as well as undertaking party appointments. Mediation Peter qualified as a mediator on the CEDR training programme in 1999 and has acted regularly as a mediator having dealt with a range of matters including construction disputes, IT, copyright, internet and professional negligence.

Rebecca Farrell

Overview Rebecca Farrell’s practice encompasses commercial, insolvency, property and estates litigation. She has expertise in contentious insolvency work; commercial matters (including contractual disputes and litigation concerning guarantees) and company claims (such as shareholder and partnership disputes). She also has good experience seeking urgent interim relief and dealing with enforcement matters. Rebecca has been identified as a ‘rising star’ in the 2024 Legal 500 rankings: ‘Rebecca is extremely diligent. Her preparation for each matter is thorough and focussed, and she applies the same discipline and dedication to low-value, fast-track matters through to complex, high-value claims. She has the ability to get on top of difficult issues quickly.’ Legal 500 2024/Commercial Litigation/ South Eastern Circuit/ Rising Stars ‘Rebecca consistently provides the necessary mix of technical excellence. Her advocacy is robust and thoughtful and has a reliable ability to persuade judges to the logic of her arguments.’ Legal 500 2024/Company and Insolvency/ South Eastern Circuit/ Rising Stars Commercial Rebecca Farrell has a busy practice advising on insolvency and company matters including partnership and shareholder disputes, financial services litigation and general commercial disputes. Insolvency Rebecca often advises and acts for insolvency practitioners; creditors and debtors on matters concerning personal and corporate insolvency law. She is often instructed to appear on bankruptcy petitions, winding-up petitions and other substantive applications in both the High Court and County Court. ‘Other applications’ include: urgent applications/injunctions to restrain presentation or advertisement of a winding up petition; applications concerning transactions at an undervalue; preference claims; misfeasance claims; applications to remove liquidators and other applications which challenge a liquidator’s decision making; applications to set aside statutory demands; applications for income payment orders; and applications for delivery up of documentation and summonses. Rebecca has some experience of disputes which have a dimension outside of this jurisdiction and associated challenges to the court’s jurisdiction. Alongside other members of the Commercial Team during the Pandemic, Rebecca published news items and delivered a webinar on updates to insolvency law and practice in light of Covid-19. This included coverage of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. Examples of recent work includes: Tanfield (as executor of the Estate of Paul Watkins) and another company v Meadowbrook Montessori Ltd [2024] EWHC 1759 (Ch) – Assisted a company incorporated to run a school, by securing the dismissal of a winding up petition for £167,593.41. The court accepted that the company had raised a strongly arguable case that the purported forfeiture of the lease by physical re-entry between the first and second hearing of the petition (causing the abrupt closure of the school) was unlawful. The court was persuaded to quantify the potential cross claim in the sum of at least £546,000 for general damages for trespass, with potential exemplary damages in addition to said sum. Brown v Ulrick (as the liquidator of S.A.L. Holdings Ltd) S.A.L. Holdings Ltd (in members’ voluntary liquidation) [2024] EWHC 2041 (Ch) – successfully applied to set aside a liquidator’s decision to reject a proof of debt. The court approved over 70% of the sums in the proof claimed, with costs recoverable under the lease to be assessed at a further hearing. The proof of debt related to a claim for breach of covenants not to alter, by a creditor (“Landlord”) against a former tenant (the company in liquidation). In its decision, the court accepted that the Landlord was entitled to the cost of restoring the property to the condition that it was in when it was first let. The court also found that it was entitled to award the Landlord the costs of proving for the debt under the lease, where Insolvency Rule 14.5(a) would otherwise require the creditor to bear the costs of proving for its debt. Jackson v Ayles [2021] EWHC 995 (Ch) - Successfully supported a trustee’s application for a declaration that the first legal charge over the bankrupt’s matrimonial home was unenforceable in accordance with Section 26 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA 2000”). The application was heard over the course of two days and Chief ICC Judge Briggs’ decision provides useful analysis concerning Section 19 FSMA 2000 (was the loan advanced ‘by way of business’) and Section 28 FSMA 2000 (was it just and equitable to enforce the loan in the circumstances, having regard to whether the person who is carrying on the regulated activity reasonably believed that he was not contravening the general prohibition). Helped a Landlord (creditor) set aside a decision by a liquidator to reject a proof of debt (by way of application under Insolvency Rule 14.8). The proof was in the sum of £277,397 and represented a claim made by a landlord against a company (in liquidation) principally for a breach of covenant claim under the lease. Successfully acted on behalf of a Trustee in Bankruptcy and resisted an application to set aside a Section 283A notice which would have placed a (previously undisclosed and valuable) property beyond the reach of creditors. Successfully obtained urgent injunctive relief to restrain presentation of various winding-up petitions in the High Court and recently appealed a cost order associated with one such urgent application which did not provide for the Petitioner’s costs of certain subsequent hearings.. On appeal, a High Court Judge unusually set aside the cost decision of the lower court and granted the Petitioner its full costs on the indemnity basis. Obtained declarations from the court that certain payments from a pension provider to the wife of a bankrupt were void dispositions. Secured an order for delivery up of documents and a summons against a director resident outside of the jurisdiction. The case raised interesting issues concerning the extra-territorial reach of the Insolvency Act post-Brexit. Company Work Rebecca acts and advises on matters which arise in the lifecycle of a business including: internal disputes between stakeholders of a business such as shareholder and partnership disputes including unfair prejudice proceedings and derivative claims; misconduct by employees; directors and shareholders for example breach of director and fiduciary duty matters; issues associated with fraudulent conduct and breach of restrictive covenant claims; and issues associated with companies in financial distress and director disqualification claims. Examples of recent work includes: Successfully obtained an urgent injunction to prevent members of an LLP from closing a hotel arguably in breach of an LLP agreement and fiduciary duties owed. Successfully defended a breach of contract and misrepresentation claim at trial arising from and in connection with an allotment of shares purchased in a Single Enterprise Investment Scheme (“SEIS”) qualifying company. Assisted senior counsel in representing a partner and eventually settling a seven-figure long-standing partnership dispute which concerned matters including equitable accounting issues associated with company property and a counterclaim for time expended on partnership affairs and retention of monies belonging to the partnership. Drafted the Points of Defence in unfair prejudice proceedings issued in the High Court. The unfair prejudice proceedings were subsequently consolidated with intellectual property claims and the petition ultimately failed (see Minim v Rahman and others [2022] EWHC 2870 (Ch)). Instructed to represent a director, from the inception of the claim, where a former director brought an unfair prejudice petition against him alleging (principally) wrongful exclusion from management. This claim was also listed to be heard at a seven-day trial alongside a claim the company pursued against the former director for monies owed to the company. The matter settled shortly before trial. Provided urgent advice on the merits of seeking a freezing order and other potential relief against a former director and employee accused of wrongdoing including allegations of bribery. Provided advice to an executor in a High Court claim which was wrongly commenced against a deceased director accused of defrauding a company of significant sums and successfully enabled the client to favourably exit the litigation. Provided advice on a number of director disqualification matters. Commercial litigation and contractual disputes Prior to qualifying as a Barrister, Rebecca worked as a paralegal in an international law firm on a reinsurance matter. Subsequently Rebecca worked as a Legal Editor at FromCounsel, a publishing company that provides an excellent online resource for corporate lawyers. Rebecca has acted for a range of clients including national and international companies; lenders; education organisations; a European Institution; law firms; and individuals on a range of commercial issues including: claims relating to the various forms of misrepresentation; construction and enforceability of guarantee and indemnity provisions; breach of contract claims including breach of warranty issues; agency; breach of trust issues; the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and associated legislation including acceptance/rejection issues; consumer regulations; data protection disputes; disputes concerning the regulation of financial services and the conduct of investors; and see also ‘company law’ section above for further examples of work undertaken which may also fall into that category. Recent matters include: Succeeded in a three-day trial concerning a disputed commercial agreement and purported breaches of obligations owed. Succeed in a summary judgment application concerning the enforcement of a property development loan worth £1.2 million, tackling issues concerned with an alleged unfair relationship and other consumer rights legislation on a summary basis. Settled the defence of a claim for outstanding fees associated with an offshore marine project which resulted in the discontinuance of the claim shortly thereafter. Acted in a high value dispute arising from the pandemic concerning masks and compliance with European legislation and domestic PPE Regulations. Property and Estates Rebecca is a member of 3PB’s Property and Estates team and her practice covers disputes including ToLATA matters including contentious probate cases; real property litigation and landlord and tenant claims (both residential and commercial). Property Rebecca acts and advises on trust of land and proprietary estoppel claims, including those which involve Estates. Rebecca’s experience of real property litigation includes cases concerning trespass, nuisance, harassment; breach of covenants (including restrictive covenants); adverse possession; proprietary estoppel; rights of way claims and boundary disputes, as well as the associated claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. Rebecca likewise advises and acts on numerous landlord and tenant claims involving both residential and commercial tenancies, including those governed by the 1954 Act. She has specific expertise in possession matters from their infancy to conclusion at trial, including against persons unknown, and associated rental arrears. Rebecca also has experience appearing in the First Tier Tribunal (Property) Chamber on applications to the Tribunal including those for determinations regarding service charges; administration charges; rent repayment orders and the appointment of managers. Recent work includes Successfully obtained possession and defended a Landlord accused of harassment by tenant. The trial was heard over 5 days in total (including judgment). Assisted senior counsel in providing advice on the Building Safety Act 2022 in a potential claim against the developer of a block of prestigous flats. Successfully obtained judgment for a Landlord where a tenant failed to validly exercise a break clause and there had been no surrender of the lease. The trial was heard over 2 days. Assisted with applications before the court associated with the possession of a valuable property located in central London which had become a high-profile matter for a well-known lender. Successfully struck out an application in the FTT for a rent repayment order based on an alleged unlawful eviction; harassment and control or management of an unlicensed home by a landlord where the Applicant/tenant failed to participate in the hearing. Successfully persuaded the Tribunal on the papers not to set aside its original decision in the aforementioned matter on appeal. Probate and Estates Rebecca has advised and acted on a number of contentious probate disputes for example Inheritance Act claims (including adult children claims); disputes over testamentary capacity and undue influence and applications to remove personal representatives. She has also dealt the interface between this practice area and others, such as proprietary estoppel and constructive trust claims in the context of Estates and the administration Estates involving insolvent beneficiaries. She has advised an executor tasked with managing a fraud claim associated with a deceased company director and employee.

Ria Herbert

Overview Family barrister Ria Herbert joined 3PB in March 2021 from another Midlands chambers, where she had developed her own busy practice in a wide range of family law matters. Ria welcomes instructions in all aspects of family law and TOLATA proceedings. Ria develops a great rapport with clients and is a popular choice with both instructing solicitors and clients. Prior to joining the Bar, Ria worked for a family law firm in their Northampton office as a paralegal, giving her a strong foundational knowledge of family law. Ria also gained considerable family law advocacy experience working as an advocate at a mid-sized law firm in Milton Keynes. In this role Ria attended a variety of public law hearings and a large number of private law hearings, allowing her to build significant advocacy experience. Outside of work, you will often find Ria watching true crime dramas and documentaries. Ria is also very passionate about music and has an extensive vinyl collection. She is also a volunteer with (IPSEA), which helps children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities obtain the support and assistance they require; and with the African Caribbean Leukemia Trust (ACLT) which promotes blood and bone marrow donation especially within Black and Asian communities. Family Care and Adoption Ria Herbert is regularly instructed in multi-day final and composite hearings. She has a range of experience in this area including representing clients with limited or no capacity, FDAC proceedings and non-accidental injury and neglect cases. Ria also has experience in applications for the revocation of care and placement orders. Recent cases: Re D: led by senior counsel on a complex non-accidental injury case involving jurisdiction issues Re F & H: represented a mother with no capacity, through the Official Solicitor, in a 9-day composite hearing involving issues with child sexual exploitation Re T, U & V: represented a mother who had been sectioned in care proceedings Private Law Children Ria has experience representing applicants, respondents and guardians in private child matters. She is frequently instructed on multi-day final and fact finding hearings, including cases involving domestic abuse allegations and parental alienation. Ria has been instructed on internal and external relocation cases. Recent cases include: Re H: successfully represented a mother on her opposed application to relocate to Jersey with her child Re G: successfully represented a father in obtaining contact with his children after 2 years of parental alienation Injunction and Domestic Abuse Ria has considerable experience in representing applicants and respondents in applications for non-molestation and occupation orders. Having previously worked in the Emergency Proceedings Department at a solicitors firm, she has extensive experience of applications of this nature. Financial Remedies Ria has experience of representing applicants, respondents and intervenors in a variety of financial remedies proceedings. She also has experience with Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) matters. Ria undertakes both written advisory work as well as advocacy. Court of Protection Ria has developed a strong interest in Court of Protection matters having represented clients with limited or no capacity and volunteering at a charity to ensure that children with special educational needs have the correct Education, Health and Care plans. Ria is happy to accept instructions from local authorities or individuals.

Richard Wheeler

Overview Richard Wheeler specialises in personal injury, clinical negligence, public and coronial law. In 2022 he was appointed a member of the Attorney General’s London A Panel (Treasury Counsel). Between 2016-2018 he was instructed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (as it then was) in the multi-million pound Kenyan Emergency Group Litigation. In the last few years he has specialised in high value personal injury and clinical negligence, acting in multiple cases valued in excess of £1m. He is often instructed as junior alone against King’s Counsel. Richard has appeared in all three divisions of the High Court and in the Court of Appeal. He sits as a Recorder in Central London and across the South Eastern Circuit. He teaches ethics and advocacy annually for the Inner Temple and is a member of the Board of Trustees for Advocate, the Bar’s pro bono charity. ‘Richard is a brilliant barrister. He is a fearsome and well prepared advocate, who pushes hard for his clients.’ - Legal 500 2023/Personal Injury/Leading Juniors/London Bar Sample of recent cases: M v MOD (High Court, 2023): defending £2m claim. Electric shock on board naval vessel. M v NHS (2023, pre-issue): acting for claimant in £1m fatal accident claim arising from clinical negligence. Death of mother of two young children. H v MOD (High Court, 2023): defending £¾m claim. Accident on Diego Garcia, British Indian Overseas Territory. Ongoing. W v HF (2023, pre-issue): acting for claimant in inquest and subsequent civil claim arising from death of farm hand on a farm in Dorset. T v MOD (High Court, 2023): defending £1.6m claim. Soldier injured in two accidents in the army. Acting as junior alone against KC. Settled at JSM. B v MOD (High Court, 2023): defending £1m claim. Soldier injured in non-freezing cold injury. Contested medical causation, neurological and rheumatological experts. Ongoing. MOD (High Court, 2023): defending £¾m asbestos claim. Acting as junior alone against KC. Settled at JSM. P v MOD (High Court, 2023): defending £1.7m claim for functional neurological disorder. Settled at JSM. M v MOD (High Court, 2022): defending £2.5m claim for neurological injuries sustained in a tank in Canada. Settled at JSM. A v MOD (High Court, 2022: defending £1.5m claim for non-freezing cold injuries, sustained in Germany. B v MOD (High Court, 2022: defending £1m claim for sexual harassment in the RAF. MOD (High Court), 2022: defending £¾m for workplace bullying in the RAF. Day v DWP & Capita (High Court), 2021: defending £½m claim for negligence and breach of human rights. Led by Neil Sheldon KC. Kimathi & Others v FCO (High Court, 2016-2018): defending a group action involving 40,000 claimants, arising out of the Kenyan Emergency in the 1950s. Led by Guy Mansfield KC and Neil Block KC. Richard has acted in many claims involving sexual harassment and bullying in the workplace, brain injuries, functional neurological disorder, chronic pain, myofascial pain syndrome, CRPS, breach of breach of data protection, false imprisonment, contempt of court, and costs. His clinical negligence work has involved claims of breaches of duty in obstetrics, cardiology, geriatric care, dentistry, orthopaedics, urological, and many other medical fields. Richard also accepts instructions in counter-fraud and has acted for insurers defending many cases involving fundamental dishonesty in personal injury and credit hire fraud. Reported cases: Emoni v Atabo [2020] EWHC 3322 (Fam) (contempt of court) R (on the application of Antonio Boparan) v Governor Of Stoke Heath Prison [2019] EWHC 2352 (Admin) Kimathi & Ors v Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB) Kimathi & Ors v Foreign & Commonwealth [2018] EWHC 1169 (QB) Yirenkyi v MOD (QB) [2018] EWHC 3102 Van Niekirk [2012] EWCA Crim 2607 Macleod [2012] EWCA Crim 1916. Access Richard Wheeler's privacy policy here. Personal Injury Richard has extensive experience in all areas of personal injury, with particular emphasis upon employer’s liability for accidents and industrial injury and illness litigation (asbestos). Many claims valued in excess of £1m. Richard is frequently instructed by defendants in civil fraud work. He recently acted for the successful applicant in the High Court in the first reported contempt of court case under the new procedural rules. He is also regularly instructed by the Government Legal Department in false imprisonment (unlawful detention) cases and claims involving breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998. Richard is also very experienced in inquest work (including Article 2 and jury inquests). He also accepts instructions in detailed costs assessments. Recent cases Claimant Work B v A: £2.2m (High Court, London) catastrophic injuries claim arising out of road traffic accident. Experts: orthopaedic, general surgery, psychology, psychiatry, neurosurgery, neurology, care. Claimant confined to wheelchair and in need of 24 hour care. S v A: £1m (High Court, London) brain injury claim arising out of knocked down by a car in London. Experts: educational psychology, neurology, care. Issue: causation of the injuries, whether non-negligent speed would have led to same injuries. P v P&I (High Court, London): £¾m High Court employers liability claim serious degloving injury of left foot in workplace accident. Multiple experts on both sides. G v NHS (High Court, Birmingham): £½m clinical negligence, fatal accident claim following hypoxic brain injury consequent upon surgery. Multiple dependants. W v NHS: clinical negligence during delivery of child, major PPH, lifetime consequences for mother. B v BN: asbestos fatal accident claim by wife for mesothelioma contracted while washing husband's overalls in the 1960s. Experts: respiratory surgeon, workplace hygienist evidence. Issue: whether exposure was de minimis / in excess of acceptable levels in the 1960s. Settled eve of trial for £150,000. Many other asbestos cases with issues surrounding exposure levels, multiple defendants, causation and quantum. Defence Work Member of senior counsel defence team in Kenyan Emergency Group Litigation (multi-million pound group action by 40,000 “Mau Mau” and related claimants alleging UK Government responsibility for alleged mistreatment during the Kenyan Emergency in the 1950s). Multiple allegations of torture, beatings, rape, breach of international conventions. The litigation involved wide ranging issues of law including personal injury, negligence, vicarious liability, common design, false imprisonment, breach of human rights, trespass to the person. MOD (Army): many High Court Non-Freezing Cold Injury claims. Claims usually pleaded in excess of £1m for career loss. Richard’s expertise in drafting complex counter schedules involves all aspects of high value loss of earnings and pension personal injury calculations. Many settlements for substantially less than pleaded by Claimants. RTA fraud & credit hire claims, fundamental dishonesty. MOJ (CPS) Data Protection Act 2018 / privacy / breach of Art 8 claims. MOD (Army): workplace stress. Claim brought for loss of lifetime earnings in the army, loss of pension. Settled for fraction of pleaded case. MOJ: claim brought by a Muslim prisoner alleging endemic racism in a particular prison. Issues: breach of Art 3, Art 8, Art 14 HRA 1998; application for specific disclosure, lifting of redactions; issues of data protection, relevance, proportionality. Acted for Ministry of Justice in claim brought by life sentence prisoner seeking damages for alleged unlawful restrictions on his licence. He alleged he was unable to visit his relatives or tend wife's grave due to restrictions. Claim pleaded breach of Art 8 and Art 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Costs Richard has also appeared in many detailed costs assessments in the county court and in the SCCO. He acted for the Defendant in the costs management appeal Yirenkyi v MOD (QB) [2018] EWHC 3102. Inquests Richard has broad experience of coronial law. He has appeared on behalf of bereaved families and has acted many times for Government Departments in inquests. Richard has appeared in several inquests where the Coroner has appointed Counsel to the inquiry and has frequently appeared alone where other interested parties having instructing Queen’s Counsel. Most recently Richard was instructed by the MOD in the Deepcut inquest (Sean Benton) arising from a death from gunshot wounds in alleged mysterious circumstances at Deepcut Barracks over 20 years ago. Richard was instructed to represent three former soldiers accused of bullying Sean Benton prior to his death. The case involved applications for special measures, reporting restrictions and cross-examination of a vulnerable witness. Several inquests have raised issues such as to whether Article 2 is engaged, whether a jury should be summoned. Richard has frequently dealt with submissions involving allegations of unlawful killing, neglect, and Reg. 28 type issues. Richard has attended many PIRs on behalf of interested parties and bereaved relatives and secured the necessary evidence and directions for an effective inquest. In one ongoing matter cross-jurisdictional issues arise involving disclosure from French, Dutch and German military authorities. Recent notable cases include: Acting for MOD in inquest into sinking of French fishing vessel the Bugaled Breizh. The families and boat owner allege involvement of HM naval submarine in the sinking, denied by MOD. Acting for family in inquest arising from alleged negligent care in a hospital resulting in hypoxic brain injury. Acted for three former soldiers in Deepcut inquest (Sean Benton). The three were accused of bullying Sean Benton prior to his death from gunshot wounds, in 1995. 14 day Article 2 inquest into death of prisoner at Winchester prison. Neglect, breach of human rights, negligence, ACCT process. Acted for motorist in 8 day jury inquest into death of undercover policeman in Southampton. Public interest immunity regarding the operation the police were conducting at the time of the fatal accident. Article 2 jury inquest involving a prisoner suicide in Exeter prison. Alleged early closure of ACCT, safeguarding, and mental health issues. Article 2 inquest following prisoner suicide in Chelmsford prison. Acted for family in 3 days, jury inquest. Window fitter killed working at height. Inquest following death of prisoner, inquiry into use of prisoner restraints. Clinical Negligence Richard has extensive experience in all areas of clinical negligence. Many claims valued in excess of £1m. Richard is also very experienced in related inquest work (including Article 2 and jury inquests). He also accepts instructions in detailed costs assessments Recent cases include: Claimant work: B v NHS: missed diagnosis Acting for man diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, alleged missed diagnosis on several chest images. Breach of duty, causation in dispute. £100k claim. G v NHS: inquest and civil claim for multiple dependents following hypoxic brain injury. £½ million claim. H v NHS: facial paralysis following maxillofacial surgery. Causation in dispute. £200k claim. L v NHS: negligence and breach of Human Rights Act 1998 following death in secure hospital. M v NHS: missed diagnosis of cardiac problem in neonate. Breach of duty and causation in dispute. Defence work: C v MOD: alleged late diagnosis, and incorrect treatment for shin splints. C. £200k claim. J v MOJ: prisoner contracted HIV in a prisoner on prisoner assault. Alleged negligence in failing to screen for HIV. Causation, prognosis, quantum. £100k claim. G v MOD: alleged failure to treat back complaint, leading to loss of career: £½ million claim. Inquests Richard has extensive experience of related litigation in the Coroner’s Court, for example: Re Gray; Benton (Art 2): acting for soldiers in two of the Deepcut inquests (families alleged foul play at army base) Re Bugaled Breizh: Acting for Royal Navy (families allege naval submarine caused French trawler to sink). Re G: acting for husband in death arising from clinical negligence. Re L (Art 2): acting for family in self-inflicted death while in care of secure hospital. Re B & many others (Art 2): acting for Ministry of Justice in self-inflicted deaths in prisons. Costs Richard has also appeared in many detailed costs assessments, in the county court and in the SCCO. He acted for the Defendant in the costs management appeal Yirenkyi v MOD (QB) [2018] EWHC 3102. Public and regulatory Richard has extensive experience in public and regulatory law. He has been Attorney General Panel Counsel for 8 years and has acted for Government Departments in a range of cases, often engaging both public and private law issues. Unlawful Detention Judicial Review & False Imprisonment Richard has acted in a range of unlawful detention prison and immigration matters engaging Hardial Singh principles and related case law. He has experience in relation to asylum application procedures, trafficking and modern slavery cases, criminal casework, Adults at Risk policy, and issues relating to claims for aggravated and exemplary damages. Richard has acted in judicial review proceedings brought by prisoners challenging detention decisions See, for example, R (on the application of Antonio Boparan) v Governor Of Stoke Heath Prison [2019] EWHC 2352 (Admin) (challenge to home detention curfew policy). Human Rights Act Richard has acted in many claims against Government Departments involving allegations of breach of Art 2 (right to life), Art 3 (torture) and Art 8 (private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Examples of recent cases: W v HCC & Ors - instructed in breach of human rights claim brought by estate of deceased prisoner. Alleged breaches of Art 2 (right to life), Art 3 (torture) and Art 8 (private life) European Convention on Human Rights. S v SoS - Appearing for Secretary of State. Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Defeating appeal of fines imposed for carrying illegal immigrants across UK border. K v Ministry of Justice - High Court trial, human rights claim by convicted murder. Acting for Secretary of State. T v SoS - for Justice Life sentence prisoner, restrictions on licence; Art 8, Art 14 European Convention on Human Rights M v MOJ - Human Rights Art 3 (inhumane treatment), Art 8 (right to life), Art 14 (discrimination) - alleged failure by prison to provide access to medical care. Data Protection & Privacy Richard has acted for several Government Departments defending claims of alleged breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and DPA 2018, GDPR, LED and related legislation. He has acted in claims involving breach of Art 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, privacy and breach of confidence. Many cases involve significant claims for distress and/or psychiatric damage, alleged diminution in house value, costs of moving home, costs of increased security. Civil Proceedings Orders Richard has acted in several cases on behalf of the Attorney General seeking an order from the High Court restraining vexatious litigants from issuing civil proceedings. Inquests Richard has extensive experience of related litigation in the Coroner’s Court, for example: Re Gray; Benton (Art 2): acting for soldiers in two of the Deepcut inquests (families alleged foul play at army base) Re Bugaled Breizh: Acting for Royal Navy (families allege naval submarine caused French trawler to sink). Re G: acting for husband in death arising from clinical negligence. Re L (Art 2): acting for family in self-inflicted death while in care of secure hospital. Re B & many others (Art 2): acting for Ministry of Justice in self-inflicted deaths in prisons. Mediation Richard is an Accredited Mediation Advocate.

Richard Pratt KC

Overview Richard Pratt KC is a door tenant at 3PB, with expertise in prosecuting and defending all types of criminal cases with particular experience in homicide, fraud and money laundering and drug trafficking. 1978: BA (Hons) degree in Business Law 1980: Called to the Bar (Gray's Inn) 1981: Elected to the Northern Circuit and joined 5 Castle Street Chambers in Liverpool 1989: 5 Castle Street merged with 27 Dale Street to become Corn Exchange Chambers 1997: Appointed Assistant Recorder 1999: Corn Exchange Chambers merged with Martin's Bank Buildings to become 7 Harrington Street Chambers 2000: Appointed Recorder authorised to sit in the Crown and County Courts 2002-2006 appointed to the Attorney General's panel (A list) authorised to prosecute the most serious cases on behalf of government departments. (Appointment relinquished automatically upon taking Silk) 2006: Appointed Queen's Counsel 2009: Approved to try serious sex cases in the Crown Court 2010: Elected Bencher of Gray's Inn 2011-2013 Leader of the Northern Circuit 2012- date Head of 7 Harrington Street Chambers 2014: Authorised to undertake Direct Access Work 2015 : Joined 3 Paper Buildings, Temple as a door tenant 2016 : Appointed Tutor-Judge to the Judicial College, participating in the continuing training of both full-time and part time Judges. Crime Notable cases: Homicide Over the years both as a junior and in silk Richard has prosecuted and defended in many cases of murder and manslaughter of which the following are a small sample. R v. Morgan Smith (2000) HL. Junior Counsel for the defendant in case which was at the time a landmark case on the law of provocation R v. RG (2005) Court of General Gaol Delivery, Douglas IoM. Counsel for the owner of the Solway Harvester (which capsized in the Irish Sea) charged with gross negligence manslaughter of the seven crew members who were lost R.v O'D (2007) Liverpool Crown Court representing defendant a student charged with murder of a fellow student during brawl outside city centre night club R.v. SM (2008) Liverpool Crown Court representing 18 year old charged with murder of 11 year old schoolboy Rhys Jones R.v. MS (2010) Liverpool Crown Court representing defendant charged with murder. Medical causation was a significant feature of the case, involving consideration of PRIS (propofol infusion syndrome) and alleged failures in the victim's medical treatment R.v F (2010) Manchester Crown Court representing defendant charged with murder of taxi driver who was already terminally ill raising issues of medical causation R.v B (2010) Liverpool Crown Court defendant charged with manslaughter of baby, raising issues of 'shaken baby syndrome' with the usual confrontation of complex expert opinion R.v. C (2011) Belfast Crown Court representing defendant charged with terrorist murder, 37 years earlier, of Captain Robert Nairac an undercover soldier who had been posing as a republican militant R.v GA (2014) Liverpool Crown Court representing defendant charged with murder of drug dealer involving a full blown 'cut throat' defence R.v TW (2014) Liverpool Crown Court representing defendant charged with murder by shooting said to represent a gangland 'contract killing' execution R.v. M and S (2015) Nottingham Crown Court seven week trial prosecuting guardian aunt for murder of and child cruelty towards 7 year old girl. The defendant was co-accused with her mother in respect of the child cruelty allegations R.v. CD (2015) Exeter Crown Court prosecuting man charged with murdering his mother R.v.JV (2015) Bristol Crown Court prosecuting man charged with murder and section 18 arising out of random night time attacks on members of the public, raising issues of diminished responsibility R.v. MS (2016) Manchester Crown Court prosecuting man charged with murder of his friend in Cockermouth, Cumbria R.v MP (2016) Sheffield Crown Court defending man charged with murder and attempted murder of two brothers R.v. MW (2016) Liverpool Crown Court representing defendant charged with murder of prostitute R.v. KC (2016) Portsmouth Crown Court representing one of two defendants charged with attempted murder of an alleged criminal associate R.v. JC ( 2016) Liverpool Crown Court representing one of three defendant’s charged with murder by shooting of innocent 16 year old boy in the context of gang rivalry R.v. TD (2017) Bolton Crown Court prosecuting man charged with murder by stabbing of popular local man who intervened after defendant had been violent to his sister in public R.v JM (2017) Mold Crown Court representing one of four defendants charged with murder allegedly arising out of drug ‘turf war’ R. v. CP (2017) Liverpool Crown Court prosecuting defendant who murdered female acquaintance before seeking to dispose of body by carrying her to remote spot and setting fire to her body R.v. KK (2018) Liverpool Crown Court representing one of four defendants charged with murder of criminal associate after failed drug importation. Case involved torture and destruction of body by fire R. v. JA (2018) Lincoln Crown Court representing defendant charged with stabbing his friend to death Operation Satinleaf (2018) Leeds Crown Court defending one of two 15 year old boys, following investigation by the Counter Terrorism Unit charged with conspiracy to murder teachers and pupils at his school by shootings and explosions. Fraud and Money Laundering MTIC Operation V959 (2004) Manchester Crown Court Prosecuted this early MTIC fraud firstly as junior Counsel and then as leader upon the proposed retrial. The case involved far-reaching abuse of process arguments Operation Gelling (2005-2008) Manchester Crown Court. Represented Prosecution in the trial of six alleged money launderers arising out of the V959 trial. Case was prolonged due to incapacity of principal defendant and major abuse of process arguments Operation Echogramme (2009) Manchester Crown Court Represented, DH, one of three defendants in trial lasting 10 weeks charged with money laundering of proceeds of MTIC fraud Operation Vex (2012) Kingston Crown Court. Represented SH, one of five defendants on trial for conspiracy to cheat in multi million pound VAT fraud in trial lasting 5 months Operation Vaulter (2013) Kingston Crown Court. Represented DM, one of five defendants involved in the freight forwarding limb of the multi million pound MTIC fraud in trial lasting 3 months. Other Frauds R.v PK (2009) Leeds Crown Court. Represented defendant PK, the lead defendant in so-called red diesel fraud in trial lasting 2 months Operation Valgus (2013) Mold Crown Court. Represented principal defendant in what was described as the largest mortgage fraud ever to be prosecuted in the UK. Trial lasted 5 month R.v RL (2014-2015) Four month regulatory fraud trial in Leeds Crown Court representing defendant charged with conspiracy to defraud the Drivers Vehicles Standards Agency ( formerly VOSA) . The allegation related to an alleged bogus scheme designed to circumvent the law and regulations relating to Operators Licenses in respect of large goods vehicles Operation Bamburgh (2016) Teesside Crown Court representing solicitor charged with large scale mortgage fraud R.v. JM and others ( 2017) Chester Crown Court . Prosecuting seven defendants ( including company) in six week trial for conspiracy to defraud, arising out of a substantial and long-running car-ringing fraud R.v. S (2018) Southwark Crown Court representing defendant solicitor in private prosecution for conspiracy to defraud. Following arguments re abuse of process, inadequate disclosure, mishandling of prosecution witnesses, prosecution ultimately offered no evidence against S when case listed for trial. Drugs Cases As a junior, Richard represented defendants in most of the high profile drug trial in Liverpool Crown Court in the late 1990's and 2000s including Operations Ayres Rock, Kingsway, Top, Dolphin and Montrose. In silk, he has prosecuted 13 defendants charged with conspiracy to supply class A drugs R.v F (2007) Liverpool Crown Court defending man charged with conspiracy to import Class A drugs via light aircraft, R.v McG (2012) Liverpool Crown Court defending lead defendant in high profile case which involved large scale drug trafficking R.v McG (2012 ) Liverpool Crown Court defending lead defendant in high profile case which involved large scale drug trafficking R.v KA (2018) Canterbury Crown Court representing defendant charged with importing large quantity of Class A drugs from Belgium. Miscellaneous R.v P. (2006) Manchester Crown Court. First case in silk- defending serial rapist in case which raised numerous arguments on the bad character and hearsay provisions R.v T (2006) Preston Crown Court. Gangland kidnapping and blackmail R.v A (2008) Liverpool Crown Court. Defending Police officer charged with corruption alongside local authority officers. Prosecution were ultimately driven to offer no evidence in the face of abuse arguments arising out of disclosure issues Operation Leyden (2011). Prosecuted six defendants charged with conspiracies to supply firearms and to cause explosions with the distribution and use of hand grenades. Described by the Judge who ultimately passed sentence as 'urban terrorism' Att. General of the IoM v. W (2012) Conspiracy trial - represented defendant who was charged with offences under the Representation of the People Act in the Isle of Man amounting to election fraud Prosecuting Authority v. H and G (2013) Extraordinary case in the Isle of Man in which the Island's Attorney General and the Deputy Assessor of Taxation (whom Richard represented) were themselves prosecuted for alleged offences of perverting the course of justice R.v. JS Birmingham Crown Court (2016) Defending former soldier charged with rape and sexual assault raising defence of non-insane automatism arising out of sleep disorder.

Robert Dawson

Overview Commercial and construction barrister Rob Dawson has a broad practice with a particular emphasis on construction and engineering disputes and associated professional liability matters as well as general commercial litigation disputes. He is based in the London office. Rob frequently appears in County Courts at all stages of litigation proceedings in addition to maintaining a busy advisory and drafting practice. Before coming to the Bar, he had a successful career in the construction industry. A chartered surveyor, Rob worked for a tier-one main contractor, as a senior consultant for an international consultancy firm and as a party representative acting for subcontractors in adjudication proceedings. Rob has been appointed as an adjudicator under several CEDR adjudication schemes, including more than 100 appointments dealing with RICS-referred complaints against surveyors. He has been admitted as a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators through both the arbitration and construction adjudication routes. Outside of work, Rob is a keen cyclist and runner. He has also recently taken up rowing. Construction and Engineering Construction barrister Rob Dawson has an in-depth experience of the construction sector. This has been gained from working in the industry, his Masters in ‘Construction Law, Arbitration and Adjudication’ and his involvement in alternative dispute resolution processes and litigation proceedings. Examples of recent work include: Instructed as sole counsel in the Technology and Construction Court to resist enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision on jurisdictional and natural justice grounds. Instructed as sole counsel to represent a contractor at trial in a claim for wrongful termination of a construction contract by the employer Instructed as sole counsel at trial in a claim for defective works against a construction contractor Regularly representing clients at interim hearings in relation to strike out, summary judgment or set aside applications Drafting pleadings in cases involving payment disputes under construction contracts, wrongful termination claims, delay and disruption claims, claims for damages arising out of defective building works and actions to recover unpaid debt Drafting an adjudication Referral on behalf of a subcontractor arising from a failure by the main contractor to issue the correct payment notices Drafting an adjudication Referral in relation to a ‘true value adjudication’ in a final account dispute between a subcontractor and main contractor Regularly advising on the prospects of success of bringing or defending claims, causation, limitation, remedies, and the quantum of any damages Advised the management company of a seaside block of flats on the merits of a claim against a construction company arising out of defective remedial works following storm damage Advised on the prospects of success and quantum of a claim against a contractor arising from the use of inadequate materials in the construction of an agricultural building Advised a local authority on limitation issues in defending a claim for payment arising out of the construction of a community centre Advised a contractor on a payment dispute arising under a bespoke contract for the construction of residential property Advised property owners on the prospects of success and quantum of a claim against a builder resulting from the defective construction of a two-storey property extension Commercial Commercial barrister Rob Dawson is regularly instructed in a range of commercial matters at all stages of litigation proceedings. He regularly represents clients at interim hearings in relation to strike out, summary judgment or set aside applications. He is already building a strong practice in professional liability claims (see separate tab). Rob has appeared in the High Court on multiple occasions to present winding-up petitions and has also appeared in the Court of Public Examination. Rob has a busy advisory and drafting practice. He regularly advises on the prospects of success of bringing or defending claims, causation issues, limitation, remedies and the quantum of damages. Examples of recent work include: Advised on the prospects of success and drafted Particulars of Claim in a dispute concerning the repayment of a company loan pursuant to a personal guarantee provided by shareholders Advised a retailer of luxury homeware products on the prospects of obtaining an order for the delivery up of goods arising from the exercise of a lien by a logistics company Drafted Particulars of Claim and a Reply and Defence to Counterclaim in a misrepresentation claim on behalf of a contractor arising from the purchase of defective plant and machinery Regularly instructed to advise on contractual interpretation and exclusion of liability clauses He has advised and drafted pleadings in cases involving: Unpaid debts Sale of goods and supply of services Misrepresentation claims Guarantees and indemnities Shareholder agreements Restitution claims Consumer rights claims Consumer credit agreements Professional Liability Rob Dawson is developing a practice in professional liability claims, mainly relating to professionals involved in construction and engineering projects. Examples of recent work include: Advising a property purchaser and drafting Particulars of Claim in a claim against a building surveyor arising from property defects that were not identified within a pre-purchase building survey Providing advice on the prospects of success and the diminution in value of a large manor house in a claim against a building surveyor resulting from major defects discovered following the completion of a pre-purchase building survey Drafted Particulars of Claim in relation to a professional negligence claim against a firm of solicitors arising out of the wrongful termination of a commercial lease Providing advice on the merits of a professional negligence claim against a veterinary practice arising out of the pre-purchase examination of a racehorse

Robin Leach

Overview A Grade 4 Prosecutor on both the South Eastern and Western Circuits, Robin Leach regularly acts as a leading Junior in serious cases involving fraud, money laundering, drugs and firearms, and has been instructed in many cases involving the National Crime Squad and SOCA. As defence counsel he has been involved in all types of criminal cases including rape, corruption and large frauds. Robin has represented jockeys and trainers in horse racing disciplinary hearings over the last 14 years and has been involved in many high profile cases in that time. Areas of experience include: Drugs, including major Columbian cocaine cases Fraud (including cases involving solicitors and other professionals, Nigerian advanced fee and passport cases) International money laundering Murder, attempted murder and manslaughter Rape and other sex offences Corruption and blackmail Firearms Burglary and robbery Death by dangerous driving Confiscation and forfeiture of assets abroad Legal Services Commission cases Horse racing disciplinary hearings Robin is recognised as a Leading Junior at the London Bar in the field of sports law (in the Media, Entertainment and Sports section) and is particularly recognised for his specialisation in horseracing cases. For more information, see his specialist profiles Crime A Grade 4 Prosecutor on both the South Eastern and Western Circuits, Robin Leach regularly acts as a leading Junior in serious cases involving fraud, money laundering, drugs and firearms, and has been instructed in many cases involving the National Crime Squad and SOCA.As defence counsel he has been involved in all types of criminal cases including rape, corruption and large frauds. Notable cases include: R –V- K Represented main defendant in a complex 5 handed conspiracy to facilitate the breach of immigration laws at Isleworth Crown Court. Complicated legal arguments on indictment  and issues with phone and documentary evidence. Drugs: R v Johnson and Others. A major police investigation by the Projects Team (Operation Alpington), leading to the prosecution of 12 men in a three-month trial at the Central Criminal Court for conspiring to import cocaine from South America and Europe. The more complex features of the case included heavy reliance on the evidence of a Colombian supergrass who was subjected to intense and highly aggressive cross-examination, and careful consideration of sensitive unused material and major disclosure issues. Led the case, assisted by two juniors. Silks represented four of the five defendants. R v Padoan and Others. Prosecution of four defendants involved in importing a ton of cannabis from Spain to Dover, at Winchester CC. Main evidence was recorded conversations obtained from probes placed in defendants' cars and by visits to Spain. Led the case, assisted by a junior. R v Ramadan and R v Costas. The cases, involving the importation and supply of large quantities of heroin, were prosecuted for the National Crime Squad at Southwark CC in linked trials involving five defendants. The main prosecution witness was a co-defendant who had pleaded guilty and turned Queen's Evidence. A major thrust of the prosecution case was based on video evidence of defendants handling drugs concealed in rucksacks. Led the case, assisted by a junior. R v Umeh and Others. Instructed by SOCA to prosecute five defendants at Snaresbrook CC involved in the manufacture and supply of crack cocaine in London. The defendants, from Nigeria and Zambia, had entered the UK illegally and joined cells already involved in drug dealing. The defendants were linked evidentially by mobile phone evidence. Led the case, assisted by a junior. Also worked almost full time for a three-year period on cases resulting from a major drugs investigation which led to the prosecution of 12 defendants in three trials. Prevailed on problematic points of law, included a three-month legal argument on the admissibility of using phone tap evidence gathered in Colombia (where the use of intercepts for evidential purposes is legal) in a UK court. Drawing on analysis of a thousand audiotapes, deployed technical expert evidence from both Colombia and the UK to repudiate the defence's claim that the intercept evidence had been falsified. Complex PII issues were addressed daily, particularly in connection with the Colombian intercept evidence. Led the case, supported by two juniors. Major fraud R v Mitchell, R v Marley and R-v Webber. The first two were solicitors running conveyancing practices in London, assisting clients to obtain mortgage advances dishonestly. The evidence against them was obtained from a close analysis of a vast quantity of their files, supported by a conveyancing expert instructed by The Crown. Webber was a chartered surveyor who dishonestly overvalued properties to enable the clients to obtain larger mortgages. These cases were part of a series of mortgage fraud prosecutions at the Central and Southwark CCs. R v Hassanyeh. Defended a solicitor who (with the firm's partners) was charged with mortgage fraud. The very lengthy nine-handed trial collapsed at the half-way point in the submission of no case. The evidence again rested on close analysis of conveyancing files, from which we were able to show that the defendants had not acted dishonestly. R v Gladdis. Acted for a builder at Portsmouth CC who was alleged to have colluded with a valuer in overvaluing properties. The case collapsed on a retrial when disclosure issues arose in respect of a conveyancing solicitor known to the defendants. Led the case, supported by a Junior. R v Higgs. Defended a charity fund-raiser who organised sponsored events in Hampshire villages attended by local sporting celebrities. The prosecution alleged that some of the money never reached the putative beneficiary, the local hospital. Defended as sole Counsel. R v Oke and R v Okoya. Over a period of two years, prosecuted a series of multi-handed, multi-£m Nigerian advance fee frauds at Wood Green and Southwark CCs. The perpetrators entered the UK for short periods of time to carry out their crimes while the victims were wealthy overseas-based business people. The trials were generally contested, generated a vast volume of written evidence and involved calling witnesses from the US and Far East. R v Burwell and Cahn-Speyer. This involved the provision of second passports to putative international businessmen. A raid on their offices revealed many counterfeit and stolen passports, mainly of South American origin. Also seized were rubber stamps and other equipment enabling passports to be altered and provide recipients with new identities. R v Noskova. She had been arrested with a co-defendant as a result of a newspaper investigation into marriages of convenience between East Europeans and UK citizens. Further enquiries revealed involvement in large scale mortgage fraud and international money laundering. Led the prosecution, assisted by one Junior. International money laundering Currently instructed to prosecute for SOCA in a serious money laundering case. Murder, attempted murder and manslaughter Has prosecuted a number of cases at the Central CC and at Winchester and Bristol. Cases have encompassed a wide range of defences including self-defence, accident, issues of causation and diminished responsibility. Rape and other sex offences R v Townsend. Having been found guilty of rape, the defendant subsequently obtained leave to appeal on the basis of new evidence - namely that the victim (his girlfriend) had changed her story. Under cross-examination, it became apparent that the girlfriend had been pressured by the appellant into changing her account and that the original evidence was true. The appeal therefore failed. Prosecuted as sole counsel at trial and appeal; the defendant was represented by a Silk on both occasions. Other cases include defending a mother of six against charges of horrific sexual abuse of some of her children, including the youngest aged five and seven. The case collapsed because the children were too traumatised and young to give cogent evidence. Also prosecuted a case via videolink where a school caretaker was alleged to have indecently assaulted four children at the school. The jury could not reach agreement at the trial or retrial. Corruption and blackmail R v Harrington. Prosecuted an ex-police officer turned private detective accused of extorting money from a top jockey who had been arrested and was on bail for alleged race-fixing. Harrington had told the jockey that he could bribe the officer in charge of the race-fixing investigation to drop all charges against him. Harrington taped all the conversations he had with the jockey and this was used in evidence. Firearms  Has prosecuted extremely serious firearms cases as a leading Junior, where the main allegation has been the possession of firearms and ammunition with intent to endanger life. The problem of proving 'specific intent' has been a feature of all these cases. Burglary & Robbery  R v Wooden. A large-scale burglary operation featuring six defendants. A gang of youths were involved in burglaries of fifty large houses in the Home Counties and also stealing expensive cars from the properties. Prosecuted as a leading junior. Death by dangerous driving  Defended a number of cases, including R v Bean which revolved around the identity of the driver when the deceased and defendant were in a car that crashed at high speed in a county lane. The car was found upside down, the deceased in the back seat. The defence maintained that the deceased was thrown into the back of the car on impact. Experts were called on both sides and took different views of the evidence. The jury acquitted. Confiscation  Dealt with confiscation after the conclusion of many trials both under the old drug trafficking legislation and wider POCA. More recently, involved in the enforcement of confiscation orders by civil methods including where the defendants' assets were abroad. Public and Regulatory Robin Leach has a wide range of experience in public and regulatory work and is a member of 3PB's Asset Forfeiture team. Notable cases include: Legal Services Commission R v Zahoor Iqbal.  Recently instructed by the LSC in respect of the recovery of defence costs from a convicted terrorist, obtaining an order from the judge for the defence to pay over in excess of £90,000. This involved having to successfully arguing that the equity in a property in the defendant's wife's name could be treated as assessable capital belonging to the defendant. Horse racing disciplinary hearings Has a wealth of experience in representing jockeys and trainers in connection with disciplinary matters at the Jockey Club, HRA and BHA. Cases have ranged from alleged corruption to safety matters and various types of riding offences. Most of these have been high profile, beginning with the 'Haydock 21' - a group of flat jockeys who refused to ride because of the dangerous state of the ground. The disciplinary panel concluded that mistakes were made by the race officials and that the jockeys' protest was justified. Represented Graham Bradley at the main hearing and on appeal in what was described by officials at the then Jockey Club as the most complex and difficult case they had ever dealt with. It was set against the background of a damaging Panorama programme. Inter alia it was alleged that Graham Bradley had attempted to have the 1987 Cheltenham Gold Cup abandoned following a snowstorm immediately before the race (because the change in going didn't suit Bradley's horse). The allegation was proved to be false after other jockeys gave evidence. (Graham Bradley was found in breach on other charges and was warned off for eight years, which was successfully reduced to five years on Appeal). Hillside Girl Enquiry. Represented Paul Bradley, the jockey who rode Hillside Girl, who was charged with others with corruption. Large sums were laid on this horse to lose because, it was alleged, the conspirators knew at the time of the race that the horse was lame - in the event, the hose broke down after a furlong. The disciplinary panel found that Bradley didn't know that the horse was lame and all charges against him were dismissed. David Nolan.  Represented him in one of a number of corruption enquiries. He was alleged to have been involved with fellow jockeys in stopping horses at the behest of a big-time punter. The case involved detailed analysis of Betfair betting patterns, telephone billings and charts. Following the two-week enquiry, allegations against him of stopping horses were dismissed, although he was found to have provided inside information to the corrupt punter. Sports Robin is recognised as a Leading Junior at the London Bar in the field of sports law (in the Media, Entertainment and Sports section) and is particularly recognised for his specialisation in horseracing cases. Robin has most recently successfully represented a trainer, John Wainwright, and a professional gambler, John Wright, on corruption charges where the main evidence - albeit flawed- was given by the jockey who rode the horse that was the subject of the inquiry. Robin has represented jockeys and trainers in horse racing disciplinary hearings over the last 14 years and has been involved in many high profile cases in that time. In the last 12 months Robin has represented Richie McGrath a jump jockey and Michael Stainton a flat jockey in two high profile corruption cases. The successful result in the McGrath case led partly to the BHA Integrity Review which has seen the BHA review its processes and procedures in disciplinary cases.

Robin Howard

Overview Robin Howard undertakes work in all aspects of business and property. As a CEDR-accredited mediator, Robin looks for pragmatic and cost-effective solutions. At the same time, when the need arises, Robin is a tenacious and effective court room advocate. His areas of expertise include: sales of goods and supplies of services construction claims franchising insurance individual insolvency economic torts restitutionary claims directors' liabilities shareholders' remedies corporate insolvency Real Property Boundary Easements Landlord and tenant. Much of Robin's work is advisory and so unreported. His recent cases include: a Commercial Court dispute concerning the destruction of stored oats the 'Thakrar litigation', a five-year-long saga involving fraud, insolvency in almost all forms (bankruptcy, receiverships, administrations) and a multi-million pound property company anti-competitive practices in the pharmaceutical industry company fraud centred on horseracing; disputes within motor industry trade associations and franchise groups complex franchising disputes in the recruitment industry, and claims against solicitors, accountants and surveyors Robin's recent reported cases include: Rea v Rea [2022] EWCA Civ 195 [2022] 2 WLUK 253 Feb 2022: successful in a contested will case in front of the Court of Appeal where court held that the Deputy Master judge, in preventing cross-examination, caused serious prejudice to his clients and a retrial was necessary, with a stay in proceedings to enable mediation to occur. White v Amirtharaja [2022] EWCA Civ 11 | [2022] 1 WLUK 57: property dispute concerning Adverse Possession, advising and representing at all stages from the County Court via High Court to the Court of Appeal on a second appeal. Robin accepts work from individuals and companies under public access. Where it is still available, he welcomes legal aid instructions. He accepts instructions under Conditional Fee Agreements. Commercial Robin’s commercial litigation experience includes disputes involving commercial contracts dealing with matters such as agency relationships, business sale agreements, franchise agreements, insurance policies, joint venture agreements, sale of goods, supply of goods and services, share sale agreements and other business to business relationships giving rise to liabilities in contract or tort. As a CEDR-accredited mediator, Robin looks for pragmatic and cost-effective solutions. At the same time, when the need arises, Robin is a tenacious and effective court room advocate. His areas of expertise include: Sales of goods and supply of service Company Law and Partnership Franchising Insurance Corporate and Personal Insolvency Economic torts Restitution claims Recent and ongoing cases Geo-Minerals GT Ltd & Anor v Downing & Ors | [2022] EWHC 2151: High Court claim for in excess of £20m in respect of marketing and intellectual property rights in minerals quarried in Norther Ireland. Allegations of conspiracy by lawful/unlawful means. Instrument Product Development Ltd v W D Engineering Solutions Ltd [2022] EWHC 1994 (Ch): High Court claim for profit share in products designed and manufactured for Swiss-based multinational. Representing successful claimant up to and at trial. Ongoing dispute concerning the destruction of stored oats; the 'Thakrar litigation': involving fraud, and insolvency issues across bankruptcy, receiverships, administrations. [Commercial Court] Ongoing complex franchising disputes in the recruitment industry [Kings Bench Division] R (CC) v M: Representing a restorer of classic cars who successfully sued a customer for refusal to pay for the restoration work done on a classic Austin Healey. A1 P v ES: Advising and representing a supplier of staff in dispute with a major commercial client over breach of contract (agency). K v Ali: Enforcing a lien over cars against credit hire-related claims management firm. Anti-competitive practices in the pharmaceutical industry. Breach of Directors Duties including Company fraud centred on horseracing. Disputes within motor industry trade associations and franchise groups. Property and Estates Robin Howard undertakes a wide variety of contentious Chancery matters, with a particular emphasis on real property, wills, probate and estate administration, and related professional negligence. He has appeared as an advocate before all the major divisions of the High Court, including the Court of Appeal, and before numerous specialist tribunals. He is instructed to advise on the full range of property related matters, including commercial and residential landlord and tenant disputes, lease renewals, dilapidations, boundary disputes, easements, restrictive covenants, and land contracts. He is often instructed to obtain interim remedies in the Chancery Division, including injunctions and freezing injunctions. Robin also advises on and acts in disputes relating to trusts, wills and inheritance, including claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, and the duties of trustees and personal representatives and the administration of estates As a CEDR-accredited mediator, Robin looks for pragmatic and cost-effective solutions. At the same time, when the need arises, Robin is a tenacious and effective court room advocate. Recent Cases include: Rea v Rea [2022] EWCA Civ 195 [2022] 2 WLUK 253 Feb 2022: successful in a contested will case in front of the Court of Appeal where court held that the Deputy Master judge, in preventing cross-examination, caused serious prejudice to his clients and a retrial was necessary, with a stay in proceedings to enable mediation to occur. White v Amirtharaja [2022] EWCA Civ 11 | [2022] 1 WLUK 57: property dispute concerning Adverse Possession, advising and representing at all stages from the County Court via High Court to the Court of Appeal on a second appeal.

Rosa Thomas

Rosa Thomas joined 3PB in April 2023, to undertake a specialist, Employment and Education 12-month pupillage. A history and politics graduate from Oxford University and awarded several scholarships and prizes for her academic results, Rosa was a World Schools' Debating Champion. She won the HRLA Judicial Review Moot (entered by over 90 teams) and was a European Universities Debating Championship Finalist (entered by 194 teams) as well as an International Refugee and Migration Law Moot Finalist. She was a debating coach at two schools, in London and Oxford. Rosa was a volunteer caseworker with Amicus, compiling chronologies and summaries of documents for the legal team and contributing to the mitigation theory documents for multiple death row cases. She has also been a volunteer researcher at the City Environmental Law Policy Clinic and the Environmental Law Foundation, analysing and summarising local plans and supplementary planning documents to assess the implementation of climate emergency action plans. She also drafted Environmental Information Requests (EIRs) to local councils and analysed proofs of evidence for a barrister in preparation for a public inquiry opposing the deregistration of a village green. Before coming to the Bar, Rosa worked in the public affairs team at Age UK and was responsible for drafting and updating parliamentary briefings and parliamentary questions on Age UK’s key policy positions such as pension policy, social care, and fuel poverty. Rosa has been a volunteer representative with the Schools Exclusion Project and represented parents at Governors’ Disciplinary Committees and Independent Review Panels to seek the reinstatement of excluded students.

Rowan Planterose

Overview Rowan Planterose joined 3PB's Construction & Engineering team in April 2019, after a long career with DAC Beachcroft. Rowan specialises in complex construction and engineering disputes, and sits as an arbitrator and adjudicator, mediator, expert or dispute board member. Much of his work comes from his panel appointments by RICS, TeCSA, RIBA and party and chair appointments on LCIA and ICC arbitrations. He is particularly known for international arbitration work, which has included Investment Treaty arbitration and has been rated in Legal 500 over recent years for international arbitration. The majority of Rowan's work is within the energy and engineering field includes oil refining and drilling and chemicals production, power generation from coal, oil, gas, waste and oil shale as well as structural, civil (including road building and tunnelling), mechanical and electrical, power generation, sewage disposal and hazardous waste disposal, food processing, railways, telecommunications. dredging and marine construction. A Chartered Arbitrator, Solicitor and Barrister, Rowan is the co-author of "The Arbitration Act 1996: A Commentary", a leading textbook on the 1996 Arbitration Act (5th edition 2014, 6th edition in preparation) and author of the adjudication section of Bernstein's Handbook of Dispute Resolution. Rowan is a frequent speaker/seminar course director on international arbitration and adjudication, mostly on behalf of RICS and CIArb. Formerly head of the exam board for CIArb, Rowan ran a Special Fellowship course in International Arbitration for CIArb. He is a regular speaker at Arbrix (RICS CPD for arbitration and adjudication) and in 2019 is the course director for Diploma courses in UAE and South Africa in International Arbitration for RICS. He also chaired a regular two-day workshop on the FIDIC international engineering contract. He remains an examiner for RICS Diploma courses in arbitration and adjudication and is external examiner for Leeds Beckett University's MSc Course in Construction law and Dispute Resolution. Neutrals - Arbitrators Rowan is a busy arbitrator who sits regularly as sole arbitrator (mostly domestic matters) or as part of a panel of three (mostly international matters). He is a member of many panels including RICS Construction panel and (2015) Construction and Engineering Service panel, Lloyds insurance, Railway Industry (RIDR), Vienna Chamber of Commerce, Cairo Regional, CAM Santiago. Regular experience as member or chair of ICC, LCIA and other international tribunals including occasional AAA. Recent and past work has included: Advising and representing a large US contractor in a mediation and subsequent international arbitration (LCIA) arising out of a power station refurbishment project in Estonia. Advising a US engineering group on a number of significant international arbitrations including representation in an arbitration in Milan arising out of a motorway project in Romania. The arbitration was subject to UNCITRAL Rules. Separately, representation in ICSID arbitration proceedings (including a hearing in Paris regarding jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal) arising out of failure of a dyke in Jordan (built as part of a potash recovery project) and governmental failure to resolve the dispute by ICC arbitration as contractually contemplated. Representing a different US Engineering Group on a number of significant international disputes including the settlement of a major dispute (in advance of the commencement of arbitration) arising out of works to construct a sewerage system and treatment plant in UAE. Advising a Toronto-listed company on a mining dispute in Botswana (Contract subject to arbitration). Advising and representing a Canadian quoted company on arbitration proceedings brought by a Spanish company in Spain arising out of the supply of equipment for a Bioethanol production plant. Acting for an Italian/German joint venture against the Pakistan state entity: Dispute Review Board proceedings and ad hoc arbitration in Pakistan. (Hydro-Electric power station project). Subsequent investment treaty proceedings commenced before ICSID, but settled before substantive hearing. Representing a Belgian dredging company in ICC arbitration in a dispute arising out of the preparation of the site for the Sochi winter Olympics in 2014. Sitting as sole arbitrator in connection with a dispute arising from a major office project in London. (Dispute involved more than 250,000 documents) and 7 awards. Sitting as party appointed arbitrator (3 person tribunal) on dispute arising between two medical schools in USA under AAA/ICDR Rules in respect of warranties given in respect of condition of buildings on sale of facility. Sitting as sole arbitrator in manufacturing dispute under LCIA Sitting as party appointed arbitrator in dispute between Chinese main contractor and Syrian sub-contractor in respect of power and desalination plant in Saudi Arabia under ICC Rules. Sitting as sole member of Conflict Avoidance Panel in respect of rail infrastructure dispute Sitting as adjudicator in respect of termination of M & E contracts on prestigious project to construct new 50 floor hotel/office tower complex in central London Sitting as chair of ICC panel of arbitrators in dispute between Romanian contractor and Yemeni employer in respect of payment and alleged defects out of a hospital project in Aden Acting as counsel for employer in substantial arbitration arising out of claims for additional remuneration by a dredging company from incidents in the course of a dredging project in Australia Acting as counsel in a long running arbitration on behalf of the concrete subcontractor constructing bridges on a major road project in the east of England arising out of delays and variations to the works Acting as counsel in two arbitrations arising out of the construction of a shopping mall in north England, the second hearing lasting 8 weeks. The claims concerned delays and variations to the project Sitting as sole arbitrator in connection with alleged design and safety defects, and delay claims, arising out of construction of a new power station in north east England Sitting as party-appointed arbitrator in power station dispute (3 person tribunal) arising out of project in south-east Asia (delay claims) Sitting as sole arbitrator in three party case (rail operators and infrastructure maintainers) to determine responsibility for major rail accident in UK, and respective proportions in which parties should bear third party damages claims Sitting as party appointed arbitrator (ICC Arbitration in Paris, 3 person tribunal) arising out of supply of agricultural equipment to Sudan Neutrals - Adjudicators Rowan acts regularly as an adjudicator. He is a member of the RICS construction adjudication panel, TecSA panel, RIBA panel, standing adjudicator for railway industry RTI/A contract, and (formerly) channel tunnel rail link (CTRL phase 2). Recent cases include : Sitting as adjudicator in two major rail industry disputes in connection with provision of a new radio system for the London Underground system, and the construction of the St. Pancras terminal of the new high speed rail connection with Channel Tunnel. Both disputes involved contracts in excess of E500m. Sat as a construction adjudicator (sole appointment) more than 30 times in the last 5 years, writing reasoned decisions, some of them being large scale and one adjudication involving 5 months consistent work. Sitting as adjudicator on a 6 month long final account adjudication arising out of office block refurbishment in London. Many thousands of documents involved. Neutrals - Dispute Board Members Rowan acts as an expert or a member of a dispute review or adjudication board (e.g. FIDIC) to make binding or non-binding decisions or recommendations, outside normal formalities of Arbitration Act or adjudication process. Construction and engineering Rowan is a prolific solicitor-barrister-arbitrator/adjudicator who has acted as counsel in over 250 cases in the High Court or in arbitration. Many cases in his early career were loss and expense claims arising out of variations or other causes of delay or construction and engineering projects, or defects claims. He acted variously for contractor, employer or consultant. For instance, Rowan acted, based in Belgium, over several years for Bombardier in Euro 300m claim arising out of construction of Channel Tunnel and its associated trains involving preparation of disputes documentation arising out of delay to project and variations, presentation to client and ultimate settlement on eve of proposed commencement of litigation. Whilst he used to represents clients in proceedings, over the years Rowan has increasingly acted - and now exclusively works - as an arbitrator, adjudicator, expert or dispute board member.

Sam Shurey

Year of call: 2015

Sarah Dines MP

Overview Sarah Dines has over 25 years’ experience at the Bar and practises in all aspects of family law, with particular experience in financial applications arising from marriage and relationship breakdown, public law proceedings, private law applications, and international child law. Sarah is a popular advocate, with a reputation for being thorough, and leaving no stone unturned in advancing her client’s case. She mixes gravitas with good humour. Sarah is unable to accept instructions currently under the Direct Public Access Scheme. Family Sarah has over 25 years’ experience at the Bar and practises in all aspects of family law, with particular experience in financial applications arising from marriage and relationship breakdown, public law proceedings, private law applications, and international child law. Sarah is a popular advocate, with a reputation for being thorough, and leaving no stone unturned in advancing her client’s case. She mixes gravitas with good humour. Financial applications Sarah represents parties in financial cases involving assets of high value, often involving an international element, as well as the everyday financial disputes arising from marriage and civil partnership, where the assets are more modest. Sarah has a particular interest in cases where assets are held abroad or by a company, where there are issues of serious non-disclosure of assets, and where there are complex family/company arrangements to be unravelled in the context of relationship breakdown. Care Sarah regularly represents local authorities, parents, grandparents, prospective adopters and children in complex care proceedings. Sarah often represents local authorities and parents in complex cases involving expert evidence, serious non-accidental injury to babies, cases involving attempted murder, rape, incest, physical violence, FGM, fabricated and induced illness (FII), parents with serious learning disability, sexual abuse, vulnerable parents, and cases with multiple international elements. Private Law Sarah regularly represents parties in cases involving complex issues of residence and contact. She has a particular interest in resolving cases where there are issues of psychological and emotional abuse, parental alienation, and children with learning disabilities and conditions such as autistic spectrum disorder. International child law Sarah has represented clients seeking to relocate with children abroad, and has obtained injunctions in relation to international abduction cases out of hours in emergencies in relation to a variety of countries, both Hague Convention and non-Hague Convention states. Sarah regularly represents both UK and international clients in relation to disputes spanning international borders. Sarah recently obtained an Annex II certificate under Article 39 of Council Regulation 2201/2303 (“Brussels II) in order to enforce a return order in the Czech Republic in relation to British children made in the High Court in England. Seminars and Lectures Sarah has been a regular speaker at legal training events on a variety of family law issues Reported Cases: Sarah has had many cases reported over her extensive career. Some of the more interesting cases are listed below: Prest v Prest [2014] EWHC 3430 (Fam) and 3722 (Fam) The parties, who had four teenage children, separated in 2008 after 15 years of marriage. At the conclusion of the financial remedy proceedings, Moylan J found that the husband was, conservatively, worth £37.5m. The final order, made in November 2011, provided for periodical payments to the wife in relation to the children pending discharge of a lump sum to the Wife in the sum of £17.5 million. The Wife sought to have the husband committed to prison for non-payment. Sarah represented Mr Prest, an oil trader, at various hearings in the High Court during the period 2013 to 2104. The case raised significant interest in the national press: in the Daily Mail and in a second Daily Mail article as well as in the Solicitors Journals. Hussein v Ahmad [2014] EWHC 721 (Fam) Claim for financial remedy by Wife in case were assets were several millions, held in UK and Iraq. Sarah represented the Husband, Mr Ahmad, a property developer, in the High Court. M and B [2014] EWHC 2686 (Fam) An application by the mother of a boy, aged about nine, for permission to remove him from England to live long term in Abu Dhabi within the United Arab Emirates. The case was referred to by the judge as “an extraordinarily tragic” case. Sarah represented the successful mother in the High Court. H (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 733 Mother’s application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against what she contended was a “pre-emptory” change of interim residence orders in respect of her three sons. Re GR (Children) & Others [2010] EWCA Civ 871 Appeal to the Court of Appeal by the Local Authority from the Recorder’s order refusing interim care orders in relation to the two youngest (of four) children where the Recorder had granted interim care orders in relation to the older children. S (a Child) [2007] EWCA Civ 356 Successful appeal in relation to expert psychiatric evidence. Re JH [2003] EWHC 429 (Fam) Appeal by parents of a care order made in relation to a young child on the grounds of the right to a fair trial, the right to family life, and the emergence of new evidence. B (a child) [2002] EWCA Civ 752 Case involving findings of non-accidental injury to small baby, and expert evidence.

Seb Oram

Overview Seb Oram is a Commercial and Construction Law barrister. He is recommended counsel in Who’s Who Legal 2023, Chambers UK 2023 and Legal 500 2023. Seb advises parties on resolving commercial disputes, particularly for clients in the construction and property sectors. He represents them in the Courts of England and Wales, and in international arbitrations. He is a member of the organising committee of the UK chapter of the Spanish and Latin American Arbitration Society (el Club Español e Iberoamericano del Arbitraje). Typical areas in which he receives instructions include: Construction International Arbitration (particularly with Spanish-speaking elements) Professional negligence (including architects, designers, engineers, M&E and project managers) Bringing and defending construction claims Dangerous structures and defective premises Payment and final account claims Adjudications and their enforcement Advice and disputes under the all common-form contract suites (e.g., JCT, NEC IMechE, RIBA, FIDIC) Commercial Professional negligence (including lawyers, insurance brokers, finance professionals, and directors’ duties) Insolvency (personal and corporate) Insurance disputes Company and partnership disputes Breach of trust and tracing claims Sale of goods and financing agreements Commercial disputes and joint ventures Arbitration. Property and Estates Disputes about land (including contracts for sale, new-build developments, land registration and unregistered land) Mortgages and receivership Landlord and tenant (particularly commercial leases and renewals; and private sector residential tenancies). After reading law at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, Seb completed an LL.M. (by research) at the University of Bristol, investigating the impact of European Community law on the investment practices of institutional investors. Outside of Law, Seb is a trustee of ‘Community, Housing and Therapy’, a charity providing housing, support and therapeutic care for those experiencing long-term mental health difficulties. He is also a trustee of ‘Compass Learning Partnership’, an educational trust that runs two schools in Brent, for children and young people with complex needs and disabilities. Publications and lectures Journal of Professional Negligence: book reviews of Patten QC and Saunders, Professional Negligence in Construction (2nd ed) (Vol. 36, No. 1, 2020); and of Flenley QC and Leech QC, The Law of Solicitors’ Liabilities (4th ed.) (Vol. 37, No. 3, 2021) Former contributing author to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors’ ISurv platform (chapters on “Regulated Public Procurement in the UK”, and on the 2011 amendments to the JCT Intermediate contracts). “Extensions of Time and Damages for Delay - Recent Developments” Paper D148 presented to the Society of Construction Law (October 2012) “Professional negligence liability for the gratuitous performance of services”. Paper delivered to the Annual Conference of the Professional Negligence Lawyers Association (November 2016). “Forfeiture of fiduciary remuneration following breach of duty: from contract to conscience” [2010] Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 95. Construction and engineering Seb Oram regularly advises and acts in relation to construction disputes, and routinely deals with disputes arising under the common-form contract suites (such as JCT, NEC IMechE, RIBA and FIDIC). A large part of his practice concerns professional negligence in the construction and engineering context. In each of his practice areas he represents parties in arbitration, and in the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales. He is a fluent Spanish speaker and will act, in particular, for clients in international arbitration, in disputes involving a Spanish-speaking element under all major institutional rules. He also acts in adjudications under the 1996 Act and in the enforcement of adjudicator awards. He is a member of the Society of Construction Law, the Technology and Construction Bar Association and a member of UK organising committee of the Spanish and Latin American Arbitration Society. Recent cases ICC arbitration of a termination dispute and multi-million Euro claim for consequential losses, relating to a bioenergy power plant (ICC arbitration, ongoing). Damages claim under an international engineering contract for the manufacture, supply and delivery of railway stock (2022). Sub-contractor’s multi-million US dollar claim for delay and disruption damages, on a regional infrastructure project to upgrade the electricity distribution network of the Bangalore metropolitan area, India (TCC, 2019-2021). Payment and defects claim under a framework contract for telecommunications network installations in the north of England (TCC, 2022). Professional negligence claim against mechanical systems designers, relating to the adequacy of a sub-floor heating system for a listed building (TCC, 2022). Professional negligence claim against structural engineers, relating to the design of a cladding frame for a major, regional shopping centre (TCC, ongoing). Noteworthy and recent cases (Technology / Construction) Readie Construction Ltd v Geo Quarries Ltd [2021] EWHC 3030, [2022] T.C.L.R. 1 (QBD) The availability of claims for the price of defective goods, under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, s.49, and the effect of ‘no set-off’ clauses. Deluxe Property Holdings Ltd v SCL Construction Ltd [2020] EWHC 3354 (TCC) Claims for proprietary relief in respect of VAT mistakenly overpaid to a contractor under a construction contract. Lejonvarn v Burgess (No.2) [2020] EWCA Civ 114, [2020] 4 All ER 461, [2020] 4 WLR 43, [2020] BLR 187, [2020] Costs LR 45 (CA) Professional negligence claim against architect; costs orders. Burgess v. Lejonvarn [2017] EWCA Civ 254, 171 ConLR 118 (CA); [2018] 181 ConLR 204 (TCC) Professional negligence claim against architect; assumption of responsibility in tort for design and project management services provided gratuitously. Ziggurat (Claremont Place) LLP v HCC International Insurance Co plc [2017] EWHC 3286 (TCC), (2017) 176 ConLR 161 (TCC) Explored the wording of the industry-standard contractor’s bond, and the insurer’s liability under it on the contractor’s insolvency. Seeney v. Gleeson Developments Ltd [2015] EWHC 3244 (TCC), [2015] All ER (D) 143 (Nov) Residential homebuyers’ claim against national housebuilder, arising out of design and construction defects in a new-build home. West 3 Mechanical Contractors Ltd v Mizen Design Build Ltd [2014] All ER (D) 40 (TCC) Defence of contractor’s claim for payment, centring on defective installation of gas installation pipework. Hunt and Ors v. Optima (Cambridge) Ltd and Anor [2013] EWHC 681 (TCC), (2013) 148 ConLR 27 (TCC) Defects and tenants’ repair claim arising out of the development of 26 new-build properties. JGD Construction Ltd v. Mills [2013] EWHC 572 (Ch), [2013] BPIR 811 Appeal considering the extent to which the court has a discretion to make a final third party debt order, notwithstanding the fact that the judgment debtor has entered formal insolvency proceedings. Commercial Seb's commercial practice focuses on professional negligence, insolvency and business entities (Company Law, LLPs and joint ventures). A significant proportion of the matters in which he acts raise questions of conflicts between international jurisdictions. In the field of professional negligence, his experience in the Commercial sphere extends to claims against lawyers, insurance brokers, finance professionals, and company directors. He is frequently instructed in claims arising from the misconduct of litigation. He also prosecutes and defends claims for breach of directors’ duties, including derivative claims under the Companies Act 2006. In each of his practice areas he represents parties in arbitration, the High Court and the County Court. Recent cases Advising the seller under an international share sale contract, in a dispute relating to title and payment for a multi-million dollar holding in a Dubai company (ongoing) Acting for the issuer of a €250 million issue of secured exchangeable bonds, in a default claim brought by the Security Trustee (2022; Commercial Court) Claim for contractual commission by the distributor of financial products, against the arranger and promoter of a $50m programme of Senior Loan Notes and mini-bonds (2021; Commercial List) Defending an assigned liquidator’s claim against a director, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of the implementation of a remuneration trust tax scheme (2021) Buyer’s claim against manufacturer, for breach of warranties of quality and description of bulk consumer goods sold under a contract for international sale (2019; Commercial Court) Professional negligence claims against financial (tax) advisors, arising from ‘film scheme’ income tax mitigation advice (2018; Queen’s Bench) Recent cases (Commercial): Readie Construction Ltd v Geo Quarries Ltd [2021] EWHC 3030, [2022] T.C.L.R. 1 (QBD) The availability of claims for the price of defective goods, under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, s.49, and the effect of ‘no set-off’ clauses. ADL Advanced Contractors Ltd v Patel [2021] EWHC 2200 (Comm) The effect of a release of one joint guarantor, on the liability of the other guarantor. Deluxe Property Holdings Ltd v SCL Construction Ltd [2020] EWHC 3354 (TCC) Claims for proprietary relief and in unjust enrichment, in respect of mistakenly overpaid VAT Davy v. Pickering [2017] EWCA Civ 30; [2017] 2 BCLC 260, The Times, 2017, 8 March The discretion to make directions under s.1032 of the Companies Act 2006, including provision back-dating the deemed date of presentation of a winding up petition. Dawson v. Bell [2016] EWCA Civ 96; [2016] 2 BCLC 59 Damages for economic duress / tort of intimidation, arising out of the execution of a shareholders’ agreement. Green (as liquidator of Al Fayhaa Mass Media Limited) v. El-Tai [2015] BPIR 24 (Ch) Liquidator’s preference claim considering director’s duty of fairness between creditors, in repaying loans. Threlfall v. ECD Insight Ltd [2013] IRLR 185 (QB) Breach of solicitation covenant in director’s employment contract, and in a share buy-out agreement. JGD Construction Ltd v. Mills [2013] EWHC 572 (Ch), [2013] BPIR 811 Appeal considering the extent to which the court has a discretion to make a final third party debt order, notwithstanding the fact that the judgment debtor has entered formal insolvency proceedings. Stupples v. Stupples & Co (High Wycombe) Ltd [2012] EWHC 1226 (Ch); [2013] 1 BCLC 729 Defence of claim for agent’s fees, based on agent’s conflict of interest. Asiansky Television Plc & Anor v Khanzada & Ors [2011] EWHC 2831 (QB) Professional negligence claim in relation to the conduct of litigation. Imageview Management Ltd v. Jack [2009] EWCA Civ 63; [2009] 2 All ER 666; [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep 436; [2009] 1 BCLC 724; [2009] Bus LR 1034; The Times, 24 March 2009 Extent of a fiduciary’s disentitlement to remuneration following breach of duty. Property and Estates Seb Oram's Property and Estates practice focuses on disputes about title, conveyancing and finance (mortgage/receivership). A substantial part of his practice relates to disputes about property ownership, and defects in land registration. In the landlord and tenant context he is regularly instructed in disrepair claims, particularly those involving expert, technical evidence. He is a member of the Chancery Bar Association. Seb has considerable experience of advocacy in the Property Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal, the High Court and County Courts, and has been instructed in the Court of Appeal. Recent cases Land registry rectification claim relating to charity land Disrepair claims brought by multiple tenants of a residential block, against their landlord Claims to a beneficial interest between joint (co-habiting) owners of properties Joint venture disputes arising from commercial agreements to purchase/develop land Recent cases - Property and Estates, Chancery: Dawson v Bell [2016] EWCA Civ 96; [2016] 2 BCLC 59 Damages for economic duress / tort of intimidation, arising out of the execution of a shareholders’ agreement. Hunt and Ors v. Optima (Cambridge) Ltd and Anor [2013] EWHC 681 (TCC), (2013) 148 ConLR 27 Defects and tenants’ repair claim arising out of the development of 26 new-build properties. Courtenay Gate Lawns Ltd v. Lee [2012] UKUT 125 (Lands Chamber) Resisting application to discharge restrictive covenants in a long lease, raising a point of principle as to the effect of a landlord’s conduct in granting subsequent leases in different form.

Ségolène Lapeyre

Family barrister Ségolène Lapeyre joined 3PB in September 2020 having completed her pupillage at a leading matrimonial finance set in London. Her practice comprises all areas of private family law, with a particular focus on financial remedies and private law children proceedings. She is also regularly instructed in applications under the Family Law Act 1996 for occupation and non-molestation orders. As a pupil barrister, Ségolène observed and assisted in a number of final hearings in the High Court and in the Financial Remedies Unit at the Central Family Court involving compensation, issues of non-disclosure and complex company structures and remuneration packages. Her financial remedy, private law children and domestic violence practice has been developing rapidly since March 2020 when she started on her feet as a Second Six pupil. Ségolène’s experience in “big money” and high profile cases includes the landmark compensation case RC v JC [2020] EWHC 466 (Fam). As a pupil, Ségolène assisted by completing financial analysis for barristers Tim Bishop QC and Marina Faggionato (for the Applicant). Before starting pupillage, Ségolène worked with refugees in the Middle East and, in 2018 and 2019, taught a summer course in tax avoidance at The London School of Economics. Family Ségolène joined 3PB with experience in a wide range of financial remedy, injunction and domestic abuse cases and private law children disputes. Family Finance Her considerable experience as a junior barrister covers disputes over: child and spousal maintenance Schedule 1 applications pensions complex remuneration packages (including RSUs and carried interest) complex trust structures non-disclosure of assets non-matrimonial assets nuptial agreements add-back claims special contribution compensation In addition to representing clients (whether publicly or privately funded) at hearings, Ségolène’s recent instructions have included: advising a name partner at a leading firm of family solicitors on the jurisdiction of the CMS following the decision of Villiers advising on key financial remedy documents such as Replies to Questionnaires and Schedules of Deficiencies drafting a Particulars of Claim in a case involving allegations of sham transactions and deficient financial disclosure drafting financial remedy consent orders following successful mediations Ségolène accepts instructions on financial remedy cases at all stages of the litigation process, including: pre-litigation consultations First Appointments interim hearings (including Maintenance Pending Suit) FDRs (including Private FDRs) Final Hearings drafting final/consent orders Injunction and Domestic Abuse Ségolène regularly acts for applicants and respondents in injunctive proceedings under the Family Law Act. She has experience pursuing and resisting applications for occupation orders and non-molestation orders in cases involving: domestic abuse and violence (adult and/or child) situational couple violence alcohol and drug use/dependency pending criminal proceedings vulnerable parties shielding, quarantine and other Covid-19 Regulations requirements litigants in person cross-applications for various orders consolidated proceedings involving multiple applicants and respondents Ségolène has secured favourable outcomes for her clients, for example: securing a 2-year non-molestation order at final hearing resisting an interim occupation order on the basis of the Covid-19 Regulations securing a 1-year extension of an ex-parte non-molestation order despite judicial indication to the contrary Private Law Children Ségolène regularly accepts instructions to appear on behalf of both applicant and respondent parents in private children matters. She has gained experience in a range of child arrangement disputes in which allegations of domestic abuse arise and is frequently instructed to obtain or resist prohibited steps and specific issue orders. Ségolène has secured favourable outcome for her clients, for example: persuading the Court to order interim contact between an infant and her mother, against whom (disputed) allegations of domestic violence had been made by several family members negotiating practicalities of child arrangement orders (“spend time with” and “live with” orders) Ségolène also advises on an array of discrete issues in private children proceedings. She has recently conferenced with instructing solicitors to advise on: the availability of a “section 91(14) bar” the admissibility of video evidence at a final hearing a prospective party’s entitlement to apply for a section 8 order the practicalities of examining witnesses residing overseas Ségolène is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here.

Sharan Sanghera

Overview Sharan Sanghera acts for both claimants and defendants in personal injury and clinical negligence claims. She holds particular expertise in insurance fraud litigation, representing defendants in claims where allegations of dishonesty arise. Sharan also manages a busy paperwork practice and is happy to undertake work on a CFA basis in personal injury and clinical negligence claims where appropriate. Sharan’s approachability, efficiency and client care make her a favourite with clients. Personal Injury Fraud work Sharan has vast trial experience of claims involving fraud including layering claims. She has acted for defendants regularly in cases where there are concerns involving additional key players in litigation. She understands that often there is a “bigger picture” which goes beyond one particular case and is happy to work alongside firms developing strategies to combat linked dishonest claims. Sharan has frequently cross examined experts whose reports are challenged on the basis that they are unreliable. This has led to several dismissals and findings having been made in relation to the poor quality of the expert’s evidence. She has particular experience of defending such claims in which psychological injuries are pursued. Sharan has acted in multiple trials at which findings of FD have been secured against claimants with consequent costs orders following i.e. QOCS protection being removed including the following: Dismissal of a claim with findings of FD were made in C’s absence. C’s expert was cross-examined with the Court finding that the expert’s evidence did not stand up “to the most superficial analysis” Psychological injury element of a claim dismissed where the expert, who attended trial for cross examination, was found to have been “an unsatisfactory witness” Claim dismissed with findings of FD and an order made for the CHO to be brought into proceedings in respect of costs Multiple findings of FD made against claimants involved in RTCs along with consequent enforceable costs orders Non-fraud work Sharan represents claimants in multi-track claims where injuries are permanent and life-changing. She enjoys being involved in a claim from the early stages of settling pleadings and advising on evidence through to trial. Within the claimant work that she undertakes she has a particular interest in employer’s liability and occupier’s liability claims. Sharan has been successful in settling many claims involving complex loss of earnings claims on behalf of self-employed persons or claimants who were in partnership prior to injury. More recently, Sharan has advised and assisted in the following claims: C injured while using angle grinder causing metal fragments to enter his eyes leaving him with corneal scarring and photophobia C suffered a Lisfranc fracture leaving her with ongoing permanent difficulties with walking and which affected her ability to manage her business. D denied liability and surveillance footage was obtained but the claim was ultimately settled favourably. C developed a PTSD when involved in a RTC in which a motorcyclist was fatally injured C, a cyclist was left with permanent symptoms when involved in an RTC with a car C was injured when, as a minor, he fell through the ceiling of a derelict building. The case was further complicated by reasons of capacity and pre-existing vulnerabilities. In addition, Sharan has represented clients appealing CICA decisions with good success. Clinical Negligence Sharan undertakes a variety of clinical negligence work including dental, GP and hospital treatment. She acts for both claimants and defendants from inception of the claim to trial. Sharan is often in instructed to undertake conferences with claimants and experts with a view to exploring prospects of success at the early stage of a claim. While understanding of client perspectives she is exceptionally well versed in cutting through the issues and imparting objective advice with care and diplomacy. Recently Sharan has advised and assisted in the following claims: For Claimants Acted for C in a claim in which D’s failure to diagnose bilateral fistula led to months of suffering, requirement for several invasive procedures and which left her with psychological symptoms Advised C in a difficult claim in which the bowel was allegedly perforated during a hysterectomy Several delayed diagnoses/wrong diagnoses claims causing protracted recovery For Defendants Advised D in a claim pleaded at over £1million in which it was alleged that there was a failure to diagnose and treat appendicitis and leaving C with permanent bowel symptoms Advised the Health Board in a claim involving a prescribing error in which C was alleged to have developed consequent GI symptoms Advised the Health Board in a claim in which it was alleged that there was a delay in referring the deceased claimant for radiotherapy

Stephen Harvey KC

Overview For the first 11 years, Stephen Harvey KC had a general common law practice. It developed into a heavyweight criminal practice and, in 1990, he was invited to join the Attorney-General’s Chambers where he spent the following 16 years prosecuting and defending in serious criminal cases of all types Over the last 15 years he has developed a direct professional access practice and expanded into regulatory, compliance and professional disciplinary fields. In 2013 he became Head of Chambers in a multi-disciplinary set of 60 plus barristers. He joined his current chambers (one of the largest in the UK) in 2016. He receives instructions from throughout the UK and abroad. Stephen has lectured on a variety of legal issues including corporate governance, bribery, corruption and cross-examination of the expert witness. Direct access practice Stephen is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Public Access scheme. He is one of the few members of the Bar authorised to conduct litigation. He is a director of a barrister-led litigation practice. Litigation Stephen is approved by the Bar Standards Board to conduct litigation. Areas of practice Criminal law – all areas. Business crime – trading standards, food and safety, pollution, health and safety, fire safety. Appeals in all criminal matters Private prosecutions Compliance and corporate governance – financial regulation, data protection, trademark and copyright breaches, bribery and anti-corruption. Public law and regulatory Planning enforcement Inquests Inquiries Disciplinary tribunals Military law and Courts Martial Sports law Direct access Crime The following are examples of the cases in which Stephen has been involved. Sexual offences PG – Secured the discontinuance of all charges in respect of a man charged with repeated, serious sexual offences. R v B – Defended in a case in which a 16-year-old was charged with serial rape involving teenage girls. R v H – Represented a top lawyer charged with historical sexual allegations on two very young girls. The accusations included stupefying them with drugs. R v X – Represented an Imam charged with sexual offending. R v B – Prosecuted a medical professional who faced multiple allegations of sexually abusing his patients. R v H – Prosecuted to conviction a ‘cold case’ stranger rape. R v B and Others - Advised the prosecution and drafted a 70 + count indictment against 10 defendants accused of being members of a paedophile ring involving some of the defendant’s children, and others, and alleged corruption within Social Services departments of local authorities and outside agencies. T Fraud Much of Stephen’s fraud practice has involved advisory work at an early stage of an investigation. When defending, he has often influenced its course and negotiated a favourable outcome. In this role he has dealt with the major investigating bodies including the Serious Fraud Office (using its wide-ranging powers), the Financial Conduct Authority in its regulation of financial markets as well as large-scale fraud inquiries conducted by the HMRC, the police and the CPS. R v AB – Represented a bank manager who had spent many years defrauding his bank using ‘ghost’ accounts and other devices to conceal and move monies around the world. R v J – Financial Services Authority prosecution of a large insurance brokerage and allegations of misappropriated premiums. Case involved ‘early day’ successful appearances in the Chancery Division in respect of a number of world-wide injunctions granted to the investigators. R v M – An insurance company fraud involving substantial amounts of monies being syphoned off through a complex trail of bank accounts throughout Europe. R v W – A substantial VAT ‘carousel’ fraud brought by HMRC involving cross-jurisdictional transactions, money laundering and a ‘supergrass’. R v G – A fraud involving the creation of a company to act as a vehicle for the sales of vast quantities of stolen specialist building materials from the company employing the defendants. R v H – A seven-figure fraud on an international leasing company by the ‘creation’ of assets against which funds were borrowed. F v K and L – Advising on a civil claim to recover tens of thousands of pounds involving accusations of fraud, forgery and an attempt to pervert the course of justice allegedly occurring during the course of earlier civil litigation. J v JB – A case involving the identification of hidden assets here and abroad and the recovery thereof. R v G – A civil fraud case before the Companies Court. The client was alleged to have defrauded two British banks of a total of £1.68 million using a BVI company (now in administration) to acquire properties in the UK. The case involved a number of issues arising under BVI company law. AB – Stephen recently advised on behalf of an American finance investment company in relation to a ‘Ponzi’ type scheme in which it is seeking to trace and recover £2.7 million. Proceeds of crime and money laundering R v M – A large conspiracy to steal and distribute prestige cars throughout Europe with the proceeds being passed through a network of bank accounts. R v C – An international conspiracy to supply drugs and launder the proceeds through bank and building society accounts in the UK and in Spain. Case stayed as an abuse of the process of the court. R v B – Successfully retained the client’s financial interests in a property in the face of the prosecutions claim that all the property should be the subject of confiscation. Bribery and corruption Much of Stephen’s work, at home and abroad, has been in relation to the ‘adequate procedures’ and protocols required for an organisation to insulate itself against the prospect of criminal proceedings. He has advised here and abroad on the Bribery Act 2010 and associated legislation. He has advised upon corruption and constitutional legal issues in the sub-Indian continent. Recently, he provided the opposition government in Sri Lanka with advice on the serving governments legislative powers and the lawfulness of some of its legislative activities. As a result the government was compelled to institute corruption investigations. Stephen has investigated organisations who have identified internal corruption and has designed processes and protocols to prevent and detect future abuses. R v A – Represented a senior tax investigator employed by the Inland Revenue who was acquitted upon all allegations of corruption after an inquiry lasting 4 years and a trial lasting 3 months. R v GD – An unusually short sentence of imprisonment was achieved for a director of an international company who was convicted of securing contracts for outside contractors. Espionage R v M – Successful defence of an army major charged with spying. Hijacking R v U – Defended the only defendant who remains unconvicted in the ‘Stansted-Afghan Hijacking’ case. Abuse of process R v H – Successfully argued that the case should be stayed due to errors made by the prosecution during the investigation. The case involved an international drug conspiracy. The legal arguments took three months to advance. R v E – At the time of trial the case involved the largest UK tobacco smuggling allegation that Customs & Excise had prosecuted. Successfully argued that case should be stayed due to significant non-disclosure by the prosecution of material it had acquired during the investigation and which was helpful to the defence. R v C – An international conspiracy to supply drugs and launder the proceeds through bank and building society accounts in the UK and in Spain. Case stayed as an abuse of the process of the court. Homicide R v T – Defended in a three-month multi-handed cutthroat murder trial. Stephen’s client was the only defendant to be acquitted. R v J and Others – This was the largest gangland trial that had been brought to court in the North of England. It involved Moss Side gangsters and gun-related violence, homicide, attempted homicides and drug dealing over a number of years. The trial took in excess of 6 months. R v G and Others – Successfully defended a 17-year-old charged with murder and grievous bodily harm following allegations that he had set fire to a block of flats when he was just 14 years of age. The case was brought to trial after a ‘cold-case review’, a Crime Watch appeal and following two major police investigations. The client was acquitted following detailed submissions as to the unreliability of the prosecution evidence. R v W – Successfully defended a young man charged with conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to dispose of the body. R v N – Prosecuted to conviction a Zimbabwean ex-policeman who killed his wife with an axe. R v A – Successfully defended a 17-year-old who was accused of being part of a group of youths who broke into the deceased’s home twice and on the second occasion attacked him leaving him for dead. The client was acquitted after an 8-week trial. R v B – Prosecuted to conviction a rare case of infanticide where a young mother, having delivered her own baby, killed it. R v S – Defended an escaped prisoner who murdered his wife in the presence of their six very young (5 to 12 years of age) children by repeatedly stabbing her. The defence was provocation and a great deal of sensitive advocacy was required in dealing with the children who were witnesses in the case. R v M – Prosecuted to conviction a difficult and sensitive ‘shaken baby homicide’ case involving medical evidence from a total of 17 distinguished experts from a variety of medical disciplines. R v K – Defended in a ‘county lines’ drugs murder where co-defendants advanced ‘cut-throat’ defences. Client acquitted of murder. Kidnapping and Blackmail R v L – Defended in a trial involving the targeting, kidnapping and blackmailing of family members of lottery millionaires. R v S – Defended a Turkish client charged with armed kidnapping and blackmail in a ‘Kebab wars’ trial. Drugs R v C – A substantial cannabis smuggling operation involving over 100 armed police officers in a midnight raid at a quiet east coast location. Computer crime and copyright theft R v V – Successfully defended in a private prosecution brought by the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT). This was the first case that has come to trial involving accusations against the operators of a ‘linking’ website. The prosecution originally claimed that the losses of copyright revenues were in the region of £18 billion. The case, at the time, represented the highest value criminal prosecution brought in a UK court. The site was one of the most popular on the world wide web which, at its peak, was the 500th most visited site out of the 40 billion sites there are on the web. Complex cross-jurisdictional issues and a number of internationally renowned computer experts were called during the case. The client was charged with two conspiracies to defraud. Successfully argued that the first of the conspiracies should not proceed beyond close prosecution’s case and the jury acquitted the client of the second conspiracy. The trial lasted 8 weeks. R v S – A private prosecution by FACT. It involved the importation and distribution of illegal set top boxes which facilitated the illegal downloading of copy written material. A significant six-figure loss was alleged. The client was acquitted. Explosives and firearms R v K – A case involving the manufacture of two bombs one of which exploded destroying a solicitor’s office. The second was a ‘video tape’ designed to explode and kill the recipient when it was inserted into a video player. R v E – A case involving the petrol-bombings of two senior police officer’s homes. Modern slavery TN – By virtue of early intervention, successfully secured the return of a vessel seized by a police force who alleged its crew were slaves. No prosecution followed for any offences. Criminal appeals Stephen is often asked to review convictions and sentences in cases he was not involved in which have, on occasions, resulted in him conducting an appeal in the Court of Appeal or the Crown Court, or if the case is suitable, in drafting an application for the Criminal Cases Review Commission. R v RL – Police eventually persuaded to re-investigate following representations that two of the witnesses at trial had perjured themselves. Matter proceeding to a Criminal Cases Review Commission application for a referral back to the Court of Appeal based upon new evidence. Military law and Courts Martial Captain CM – The defendant was an officer in the TA who was eventually charged with spying contrary to section 1 of the Official Secrets Act. with spying. Stephen represented her from the moment of her arrest. She spent some six months in closed custody following which a successful application for habeas corpus was made. Following her release, the matter was passed over to the civilian authorities. The case resulted in an acquittal. Major JG – This officer was the Range Safety Officer at a live firing range in Alberta, Canada. He served as such during the British Army’s tenancy of the range. There were some fatalities culminating in the death of two soldiers who were killed by tank mortar due to an error in the transmission of firing coordinates. The officer was charged with two counts of negligent manslaughter. The courts martial lasted two weeks and resulted in acquittals upon both counts. Public and Regulatory Financial Stephen has spent some time over the past five years advising on the ever-increasing volume of regulation affecting the financial sectors. He has advised an overseas investment bank in relation to its obligations under the European Market Infrastructure Regulations (MMIR), the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II), the obligations that the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) imposes (introduced by the American government with effect from July 2013) and of its responsibilities under the Dodd-Frank Act. The economic situation has also seen a growth in the number of small to medium sized businesses enter the ‘Peer to Peer’ lending market. He has advised a small British PLC wishing to create a peer to peer lending operation on the regulatory framework attaching to such an operation. AL Ltd – Advised upon and prepared detailed skeleton submissions for the Chancery Division in the Financial Conduct Authority’s application for a Restitution Order for £17.5 million under s.382 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Other regulatory R v C Z – Successfully argued for a low-level penalty having analysed the way in which breaches of the Control of Asbestos regulations 2012 had occurred. The fines imposed were 1/5th of those originally expected. GDC v S – Defended in a General Dental Council prosecution in a case involving cosmetic treatment and breaches of the Dentists Act 1984. Dr. J – Care Quality Commission application for cancellation of a GP’s practice registration under the Health and Social Care Act 2012. XX – Advised and represented a red brick university in disciplinary hearings of students. Trading standards JB – Represented a firm of surveyors who were prosecuted for various contraventions of the Trading Standards Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. BC v SCS - Instructed to institute and conduct a private prosecution under regulations 8 and 9 of the Trading Standards Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Private prosecutions Stephen is well placed to advise upon, and conduct, private prosecutions. MO – Secured a full indemnity of costs incurred by a private prosecutor in a failed private prosecution. BC v SCS - Instructed to institute and conduct a private prosecution under regulations 8 and 9 of the Trading Standards Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 Health and Safety R v M – Advised upon the prosecution of a nursery school where a 3-year-old child died in an accident whilst at school. The case eventually went to judicial review where Stephen’s advice as to what course the case should take was approved and upheld by the Queen’s Bench Division. R v S – Alleged breaches of workplace regulations concerning welding equipment. Employee died in an explosion and the HSE investigated. Advised from the outset and before the client was interviewed. As a result, the HSE were persuaded not to prosecute the client although others were. Planning enforcement Planning Inquiry - Stephen successfully appeared in a public inquiry arguing that the route of an ancient right of way should be changed to allow for commercial development. R v BP – Alleged breaches of planning regulations over a 10-year period. Successfully argued technical failures in the prosecution case leading to acquittals on all matters and a full indemnity of costs. R v SL – Successfully argued highly technical issues regarding planning enforcement proceedings taken by a local authority against a person with no legal or equitable interest in the property. Client obtained a full indemnity of the costs incurred. R v P – A planning enforcement case involving technical submissions regarding the local authority’s litigation procedures. Case resulted in an acquittal after three days of legal argument. The client was awarded all of his costs. Inquests XX – Represented a senior police officer in an inquest involving a death in custody. Prospective criminal proceedings, particularly under the Corporate Homicide Act 2007, did not follow. XX1 – Represented the family of a deceased who died as a result of alleged medical negligence whilst in hospital. Key witnesses were cross-examined at this critical stage to facilitate the progress of the civil action in clinical negligence against the doctors and the health authority. XX2 – Client involved in a fatal road traffic accident and was facing a criminal prosecution for causing the death and a civil action for damages. Successfully cross-examined key witnesses at this key stage of the matter resulting in no prosecution taking place. XX3 – Corporate client, and a director of the company, involved as Interested Parties in a fatality on a construction site. Criminal proceedings were not subsequently undertaken by the police. Disciplinary tribunals Stephen has successfully represented footballers and police officers before Commissions and Police Disciplinary Tribunals. Corporate governance and bribery Stephen has both written and lectured to several audiences on the Bribery Act 2010 and its implications worldwide. To date, much of the corporate governance and Bribery Act 2010 work has been in the form of advising organisations as to protocols, procedures and processes. Inquiries Stephen has appeared in inquiries and public meetings concerning, inter alia, the retention of medical services (a doctor’s surgery) in a community during health service restructuring, and the inadequate provision of sewage plant by a water company resulting in environmental pollution in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Stephen successfully represented a client in a public inquiry regarding an application to alter the path of an ancient and historically significant public right of way. Against considerable opposition from residents and historical societies, he was successful. Other cases and instructions R v H – Defended a mortician charged with theft of body parts from a number of different hospital mortuaries over a number of years. A non-custodial sentence was secured. R v S – Defence of a fisherman in which the legitimacy of the entire European fishing quota system was in issue. Issues such as the legislation being unlawful due to reasons of anti-competitiveness were advanced as well as other constitutional issues involving the interaction between UK and European legislation. WV v A School – Successful defence of the Board of School Governors and three of its teachers against an accusation of racial discrimination. Stephen has also represented a Deputy Head teacher from a different school who was suspended pending accusations which amount to accusations of gross misconduct and potential summary dismissal. The teacher was reinstated. Stephen has been instructed by the opposition government of Sri Lanka to advise as to the legal and constitutional validity of the sitting governments legislative programmes. Sports Stephen has successfully represented sportsmen and women (some of national significance) before their disciplinary bodies for a variety of matters. XFC NO 1 – Successfully persuaded the FA to drop an investigation into a footballer alleged to have made racist remarks during a game. XFC NO 2 – Successfully persuaded the FA not to proceed with an investigation into an allegation that the FC involved failed to cooperate with its investigation. Sports tribunals Stephen has sat as the Legal Chair of a Disciplinary Appeal Panel involving international athletes. Sporting inquiries Stephen has been in structed to investigate an Olympic athlete’s conduct following a series of complaints. Cricket Stephen has recently advised an international club on match-fixing issues and investigations by the ICC He has also advised in relation to matters before the British Horseracing Authority

Steven McGarry

Overview Steven McGarry is a commercial barrister who specialises in banking and finance litigation, company disputes, insolvency and professional negligence cases. Recognised by the legal directories as an “expert in financial regulation”, Steven is frequently instructed in cases involving mis-selling of financial products. He has now built up a considerable following in heavyweight banking advice and litigation,across a range of areas, including in particular interest rate hedging work, currency hedge litigation, commercial lending and securities disputes and pension mis-selling and transfer litigation. He is regularly instructed for claimants in cases concerning investment advice and breach of the regulatory framework and also acts for directors in disqualification proceedings. He is frequently instructed to act for directors and individuals on issues of insolvency and bankruptcy, including cases relating to preferential transfers, transfers at undervalue and fraudulent activity. He also advises on the full range of commercial litigation disputes including contract disputes and company law/shareholder claims and professional negligence cases. Commercial Steven McGarry is a commercial barrister who specialises in banking and finance litigation, company disputes, insolvency and professional negligence cases. Financial services Steven McGarry has built up a following in heavyweight banking advice and litigation, across a range of areas, including in particular interest rate hedging work, currency hedge litigation, commercial lending and securities disputes and pension misselling and transfer litigation. Routinely instructed by financial professionals on regulatory issues, including the Perimeter Guidance Manual and questions of regulated activity. He is routinely instructed to act for directors and individuals on issues of insolvency and bankruptcy, including cases relating to preferential transfers, transfers at undervalue and fraudulent activity. Steven is regularly instructed for claimants in cases concerning investment advice and breach of the regulatory framework. Steven also acts for directors in disqualification proceedings. He is recognised in the Legal 500 as an “expert in financial regulation” and is routinely instructed in matters associated with the mis-selling of financial products. Company/Partnership disputes Steven is routinely instructed in cases involving directors’ Company Act and fiduciary duties. He has wide experience of shareholder actions and partnership claims. Insolvency/Bankruptcy Steven is frequently instructed to act for directors and individuals on issues of insolvency and bankruptcy, including cases relating to preferential transfers, transfers at undervalue and fraudulent activity. Professional negligence/liability Steven does mainly claimant-based professional negligence work, involving legal professionals, accountants, financial advisers, surveyors and architects. Recent cases include: Ramsden v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2020] EWHC 357 (QB): represented claimant in large damages claim against the HMRC. Deansgate 123 LLP v Workman and another [2019] EWHC 2 (Ch): acted for estate in complex claim brought under a.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Martin-Smith v Welcome Finance Ltd: important case relating to undisclosed commission claims. FCA v Avacade and others: (led by David Berkley QC) trial involving allegations of prohibition breach in significant pension transfer business. FND Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc: case concerning allegations of swap mis-selling and Libor manipulation. MS v X: Acting for high net worth individual involved in hedge fund investment. Carden Park Group v Barclays Bank Plc: Acted for hotel group in a significant interest rate swapclaim based on negligence and Libor manipulation. CGL Group Limited v RBS: Acting for claimant in widely reported interest rate swap claim, which has now received permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the “Suremime” issue. Thornbridge Limited v Barclays Plc: Acted as junior in this important interest rate swap trial, which went to the Court of Appeal in November 2016. M v Yorkshire Bank Plc: Instructed in case involving issues of fixed rate lending and “embedded swaps” Numerous v A Pension Scheme: Instructed in group litigation concerning widespread pensiontransfer mis-selling and collective investment schemes. Liquidator v DR: Acted as counsel for director facing accusations by the liquidator of preferential transfers and transfers at an undervalue, amounting to £2m. HMRC v IS: Instructed by director in disqualification proceedings based upon MTIC allegations. MTR Bailey Trading Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc: Interest rate hedge claim presently before the Court ofAppeal on novel points of law, including rights of action under the FSMA 2000. National Westminster Bank Plc v JD Pickford Partnership: Acted for the Defendants in successfully resisting a claim to enforce bank fees associated with a ‘property participation scheme’ (a Global Restructuring Group/West Register Investments fee). Technocover Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc: Achieved settlement for ‘sophisticated’ customer in interestrate hedge claim. Green and Rowley v Royal Bank of Scotland: Acted as part of the team on behalf of the Appellants in this important appeal case, which relates to the mis-selling of financial derivative. Steven's recent confidential cases include: Advising group company in shareholder claims over international contract rights following group dispute. Acting for property developers in claim against construction company for breach of contract andnegligence. Numerous instructions involving breach of contract claims with Global Restructuring Group of RBS. Acting for property developers in negligence litigation with monitoring surveyor. Representing financial adviser in dispute with financial network over termination of agency agreement. Advising and representing ex-director and shareholders in failed property investment. Injunctive Relief Steven is routinely instructed in applications for injunctive relief in commercial, property and insolvency proceedings. His instructions in this area are often received at extremely short notice, and Steven has consistently demonstrated that he is able to quickly assess merits and perform under pressure to the very highest levels. He is recognised as being able to reassure clients and provide them with the right advice in often very demanding circumstances. A v B - application for injunction by landlord against tenant in commercial proceedings, concerned with “s.146 notice” and “structural changes” to premises C v D - application for “springboard injunction“ to enforce restrictive covenant clause in recruitment industry E v F - application to enforce rights of entry and access into commercial premises by co-Director as against other director G v H - application to restrain company from presented winding up petition in large scale dispute I v J - application to restrain retail supplier of gas from third party distribution L v M - application to restrain IT reseller from third party distribution of IT software and hardware. Steven also represents on a direct access basis, and routinely represented clients in applications to set aside personal statutory demands.

Stuart Kennedy

Overview Prior to coming to the Bar, Stuart had already established a successful career in the construction industry. Having worked for a professional quantity surveying practice, a main contractor and been a director of a major sub-contractor, he set up his own quantity surveying practice in 1995. He is a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Stuart Kennedy is recommended in Band 2 of the International Arbitration:Construction/Engineering: London of the Chambers and Partners 2011 Directory. ‘Stuart Kennedy of 3 Paper Buildings also takes his place in the table for the first time in recognition of the significant practice he has developed in this area. His practice is cross-jurisdictional and he recently acted for the claimant in a dispute with the Hong Kong government’. Academic Stuart has a First Class Honours degree in law and won the Barstow Scholarship on the Bar Course at the Inns of Court School of Law. The Scholarship was awarded for obtaining the third highest marks out of over 700 candidates, a feat all the more remarkable as Stuart was studying on the part-time course whilst working full time! Dispute resolution He has long been involved in resolving construction disputes as quantity surveyor, an adviser/advocate and as an arbitrator/adjudicator. He was appointed to the Panel of Adjudicators of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in 1997 and the RICS Panel of Adjudicators in 2000. He is a member of the Society of Construction Law and regularly publishes articles and gives lectures. International He has been involved in a number of international construction projects including the new Hong Kong Airport and the new airports in Oslo and Athens, as well as other projects in Europe and the Middle East. In June 2001, Stuart was called to the Bar of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Areas of practice Stuart Kennedy's practice as a barrister naturally focuses on construction, but he also undertakes work in other areas, including landlord and tenant, company, general commercial work and crime. Stuart is on the CPS approved list of advocates and is a member of Western Circuit. He regularly accepts appointments as an Arbitrator and as an Adjudicator, either nominated by one of the Appointing Bodies or by agreement between the parties. Construction and engineering Prior to coming to the Bar, Stuart had already established a successful career in the construction industry. Having worked for a professional quantity surveying practice, a main contractor and been a director of a major sub-contractor, he then established his own quantity surveying practice. Stuart is therefore able to combine his practical knowledge of the industry with his legal expertise to provide practical legal advice. Stuart Kennedy is recommended in Band 2 of the International Arbitration:Construction/Engineering: London of the Chambers and Partners 2011 Directory. ‘Stuart Kennedy of 3 Paper Buildings also takes his place in the table for the first time in recognition of the significant practice he has developed in this area. His practice is cross-jurisdictional and he recently acted for the claimant in a dispute with the Hong Kong government’. Academic Stuart has a First Class Honours degree in law and won the Barstow Scholarship on the Bar Course at the Inns of Court School of Law. The Scholarship was awarded for obtaining the third highest marks out of over 700 candidates, a feat all the more remarkable as Stuart was studying on the part-time course whilst working full time! Dispute resolution He has long been involved in resolving construction disputes as quantity surveyor, an adviser/advocate and as an arbitrator/adjudicator. He was appointed to the Panel of Adjudicators of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in 1997 and the RICS Panel of Adjudicators in 2000. He is a member of the Worshipful Company of Arbitrators. International Stuart has been involved in a number of international projects including the new Hong Kong Airport and the new airports in Oslo and Athens , as well as other projects in Europe and the Middle East . In June 2001, Stuart was called to the Bar of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Areas of practice Stuart Kennedy's practice as a barrister naturally focuses on construction, where he acts as an advocate in litigation, arbitration, adjudications and mediations. He regularly accepts appointments as an Arbitrator, Adjudicator and Mediator, either nominated by one of the Appointing Bodies or by agreement between the parties. He is a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, and a member of TECBAR, the Society of Construction Law and of the Western Circuit. He also lectures at conferences and seminars. Professional negligence As well as dealing with a wide range of building disputes, Stuart regularly acts for and against surveyors, architects and engineers in Professional Negligence claims. Stuart is able to combine his legal knowledge with his first hand practical experience of the construction industry to excellent effect. As a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Stuart is familiar with the role of Professionals and the standards they should work to. Client Testimonials “construction – what he doesn’t know is not worth knowing” (Instructing solicitor). Reported cases Sinclair v Woods of Winchester Ltd [2005] EWHC 1631 (QB) (14 July 2005), [2006] EWHC 3003 (TCC) (22 November 2006) Stuart has appeared in a number of reported cases concerning enforcement of Adjudicator's Decisions including: Glencot Development and Design Co. Ltd v Ben Barrett & Son (Contractors) Ltd [2001] BLR 207. Trustees of Stratfield Saye Estate v AHL Construction Ltd [2004] EWHC 3286(TCC). Palmac v Park Lane Estates Limited [2005] EWHC B1 (TCC). Allen Wilson Shopfitters v Anthony Buckingham [2005] EWHC 1165 (TCC)

Sunyana Sharma

Overview Sunyana Sharma is an inquest and professional discipline barrister with specialist knowledge in maritime and fishing law and health and safety law. She also has experience in regulatory compliance. Sunyana sits as an Assistant Coroner for Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth and as a Deputy District Judge in Civil and Family law. To read more about Sunyana’s relevant expertise, please see her specialist inquests profile. Prior to joining Chambers, Sunyana worked for the Solicitor International Human Right’s Group (‘SIHRG’) with whom she organised the Zimbabwe Fundraising Event called 'Protecting Lawyers in Zimbabwe' in collaboration with the Bar Human Rights Committee. She also worked as part of a team in researching and drafting legal submissions on the rule of law and the importance of an impartial tribunal following the suspension of the Chief Justice of Pakistan in March 2007. In addition, she undertook an internship with the criminal justice department of 'JUSTICE', the all party law reform and human rights organisation. She assisted with the research on policy papers commissioned by JUSTICE, which included changes to the rape in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and responses to the Home Office paper on 'New powers against organised and financial crime’. Reported Cases [2010] EWCA Crim 109; [2011] 1 Cr App R (S) 36: The Court considered whether exceptional circumstances exist justifying the court in not imposing the required minimum sentence for the possession of firearms. Publications Sunyana has written for a number of publications on topics such as inquests, public law and life at the Bar. These articles include: “Kids, Court and Caffeine…How to survive having a baby at the Bar” (The Barrister, 2023) “The influence of Coroners—what impact do prevention of future deaths reports have in practice?” (LexisNexis, 2021) “Fisheries Act 2020–snapshot”, in collaboration with Dr Tagbo Ilozue (LexisNexis, 2021) “Secondments – worth a second thought” (Counsel Magazine, 2020) "BarNone: changing the face of justice", in collaboration with Anjali Gohil (Counsel Magazine, 2020) "Breaking moulds" (Counsel Magazine, 2020) Public and Regulatory Sunyana Sharma is a busy inquest and professional disciplinary specialist with significant expertise in the health and safety, maritime and fisheries sectors. She also regularly advises and appears in CQC, DBS and OFSTED appeals. She has was previously appointed to the C list of Regulatory Advocates for the Health and Safety Executive, Office of Rail Regulation and the Environment Agency. She has both defended and prosecuted in various regulatory law matters, which have included collisions at sea, fisheries offences, breaches of a health and safety regulations, animal welfare and trading standards prosecutions. Furthermore, she regularly appears before various disciplinary tribunals and care and education standards tribunal. Sunyana is regularly invited to speak on coronial law, professional discipline and regulatory matters to solicitors, colleagues and industry experts. Secondments Sunyana has undertaken the following secondments in the field of healthcare and financial regulation and health and safety: 10 month secondment with investigations team for the Financial Conduct Authority working on two dual tracked investigations into two major global bank. 13 month secondment with National Grid PLC as Specialist Health, Safety and Environment In house Counsel. Ad Hoc secondment with the GCC to advise on cases. Six month secondment as a case presenter to the NMC dealing with a variety of misconduct and lack of competence cases (NMC). Assisted the public and regulatory team on advising the Nursing and Midwifery Council (‘NMC’) on ‘fitness to practise’ cases under the NMC ‘Code: Standards of conduct, performance and ethics for nurses and midwives’, ‘Standards for Medicines Management’ and Guidance on ‘Recordkeeping’ for nurses and midwives (Blake Morgan and Fieldfisher Waterhouse). Professional discipline and regulatory law Sunyana Sharma has developed a strong practice in professional disciplinary regulation following secondments as a case presenter at the Nursing and Midwifery Council (‘NMC’) and in house lawyer at the General Chiropractic Council (‘GCC’). She appears regularly in various healthcare tribunals which includes the NMC, GCC, Health and Care Professions Council (‘HCPC’), Medical Practitioner’s Tribunal Service (‘MPTS’), General Optical Council (‘GOC’), British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (‘BACP’) and General Dental Council ‘GDC’ for substantive misconduct and health hearings, interim order applications and substantive order reviews. In addition, she is regularly instructed by nursing, care homes and GP Surgery’s appealing CQC decisions before the First Tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber). Having developed an in depth and robust understanding of the ‘fitness to practise’ regime, she takes instruction in all professional disciplinary cases. Sunyana was seconded to the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’) from 2019 to 2020 to assist in two high profile dual tracked investigations into systemic failures by two major global banks. Recent Cases HCPC v. x (2023): Instructed to represent practical psychologist for plagiarism allegations in a PhD thesis. NMC v. x (2023): Represented a nurse in an interim order hearing for being charged with gross manslaughter and misconduct allegations in which responsible nurse failed to attach monitoring equipment of a child with co-morbidities and sleep apnoea, which caused and/or contributed to patient’s death. GPhC v. PP (2022): Advised a pharmacy group for potential allegations in relation to staff at the pharmacy being unqualified and large volumes of Phenergan and Codeine Linctus going missing during COVID-19 lockdown. Pharmacy unable to account for missing medication. BACP v. SE (2022): Representing a counsellor for misconduct allegations for conducting a joint counselling sessions for a couple with instance of domestic violence. Expert instructed to show the changing clinical approach to counselling sessions in domestic violence cases where joint sessions were permissible in certain circumstances. GDC v. MB (2022): Instructed to represent a Harley Street dentist in 14-day misconduct case in respect of inadequate care given to five patients and inappropriate offensive communication with a sixth patient. Complexities in the case included the instruction of an expert due to the technical nature of the implants provided, further disciplinary findings that the Committee were made aware of at the later stages of the proceedings and representing a challenging client with mental health issues. GDC v. x (2021): representing CDT for multiple allegations relating to working out of scope, breach of an interim order and various dishonesty allegations. BACP v. x (2021): Representing a counsellor for misconduct allegations in relation to joint counselling sessions for a couple with a history of domestic violence. GMC v. x (2020): Instructed to represent a consultant anaesthetist for incorrect and dangerous intubation pre-surgery of two patients leading to near deaths. GDC v. SK (2020): Successfully represented a dentist in an IO hearing who faced allegations of sexual abuse. CQC v. YSL (2020): Successfully represented care home in an appeal to cancel its registration before the First Tier Tribunal (Care Standards). Human Givens Institute v. LM (2019): Advised an integrative therapist specialising in mental and emotional health on an appeal of the decision of the Human Givens Institute for practising out of scope. NMC v. RP (2018): Represented a nurse for a number of failings in which he was blamed for the death of a patient. Following the week’s substantive hearing none of the allegations were found proved. GMC v. x (2017): Represented a Doctor for carrying out medical practise whilst not holding a licence to practise. HCPC v. KC (2017): Represented a social worker for receiving a caution for disclosing sexual photographs of his ex partner. GOC v. AP (2016): Represented an optician for over 50 misconduct allegations relating to the adequacy of sight testing, the fitting of contact lenses, record keeping and dishonesty for a patient with keratoconus. NMC v. JN (2015): Instructed to advise a registrant on an appeal to the High Court relating to a Substantive Order determination on dishonesty. NMC v. PN (2015): Represented the NMC at a misconduct substantive hearing in which the registrant was undertaking shift work when signed off sick and working excessive hours, including a continuous 37 hour shift. GDC v. IK (2014): Instructed to represent a dental technician for acting outside his scope of practice. NMC v. KA-A (2014): Successfully represented the NMC for a 9 day substantive misconduct hearing against two nurses for restraining a vulnerable dementia patient to a hospital bed with a bedsheet and cable ties. NMC v. AA (2014): Represented the NMC for dishonesty allegations against the Registrant who had produced and provided false references to an NHS Trust to obtain a Band 5 Nursing post. The five day substantive hearing resulted in the Nurse being struck off. GCC v. X (2014): Represented the GCC for a substantive order review hearing of a Chiropractor who had been convicted of acts of voyeurism. GCC v. EJ (2013): Successfully represented EJ in a four day substantive hearing for allegations of unacceptable professional conduct relating to a sexual relationship with a patient, confidentiality breaches and dishonesty. GOC v. AP (2012): Appeared on behalf of a student optician for dishonesty allegations. Marine and Fisheries Law As a criminal and regulatory specialist, Sunyana has developed expertise that focuses on the maritime and fisheries sector.  She regularly prosecutes, defends and advises in actions brought by the Maritime Coastguard Agency (‘MCA’).  She has also defended a number of cases prosecuted by the Marine Management Organisation (‘MMO’).  Her cases have included: Collisions at sea Health and safety breaches Pollution offences Illegal fishing Registration and technical failures. Her clients include: masters, owners, charterers, operators, harbour authorities and the MCA. Recent cases Inquest touching deaths of M, J & P (2023): Representing HM Coastguard Agency in three joint inquests following drownings that occurred during the relaxation of COVID pandemic lockdown. PFD concerns raised on the management of beach safety prior to the inquest. Inquest touching the deaths of YMG & PLF (2021): Represented HMCG in 10 day Judge led inquest which inquired into the drowning of two fisherman following the sinking of the French fishing vessel, the Bugaled Breizh in January 2004. The inquest considered the structural safety of the vessel, adequacy of training and equipment, the possible causes of the sinking including the involvement of another vessel or submarine and the adequacy of the search and rescue of the fishermen. R v. SG (2020): Represented a Maritime Operations Officer (‘MOO’) for their involvement in a search and rescue operation following a person in the water at New Brighton who subsequently died. Although police investigation into gross negligence manslaughter allegations against MOO, early involvement in case led to client not being arrested or charged. MCA v. SYA Ltd & RA and MCA v. KD (2020): Represented MCA in two cases for sailing a yacht without having in force a valid small code certificate for the vessel. Technical issues raised relating to the applicability ‘Blue Code’ and MGN 280. R v. DW & LB Ltd (2019): Representing the MCA in a double collision on the River Thames causing damage in excess of half a million pounds. R v. DR (2019): Representing the MCA following a collision of a high speed tour boat with a buoy on the River Thames causing injury to passengers. Inquest touching the death of NW (2018): Represented HM Coastguard Service for the MCA following a death at sea in which article 2 issues were raised following a complaint by SECAMB. R v. F & Others (2016) Represented the owners of a Fishing Company on a high profile three handed fisheries matter in the Falkland Islands for breaches of ss. 167 and 168 of the Fisheries (Conservation and Management) Ordinance 2005 and Regulation 61 of the Fishing Regulations Order 1987 for failing to report £184,038 of hake.  Avoided a conviction of the s.168 offence which would have lead to the forfeiture of the owner’s vessel, which has been valued at £1.5million. MCA v. Michael Stimson (2015) Successfully prosecuted a fisherman on behalf of the MCA for harvesting shellfish from a prohibited area of Southampton Waters contrary to Regulation 19(1) of the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013, failing to display navigation lights at night pursuant to the rule 23 of the COLREGs, displaying the Port of Registry and Fishing Numbers on his vessel despite his vessel being unregistered for a period of 2 years, contrary to s.15(3) and (5) of The Merchant Shipping Act 1995. MMO v. Westminster Dredging Company Ltd (2015) Represented a multi national Company for breaching s.65 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 in that it deposited dredging material in an area outside the area designated within the licence at HMNB Devonport on 31 occasions. MCA v. Geradus Chapel (2014) Instructed to advise the Master of a dredger for offences under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 following a collision that led to a fatality. MCA v. Richard Pease (2014) Successfully prosecuted a hovercraft driver who was almost 3 x over the legal limit in alcohol whilst under passage between Southsea, Hampshire & Ryde, Isle of Wight under the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. MCA v. NJ (2014) Successfully defended the driver of a rib for breaches of The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996, following a collision on the Cardiff Bay. MCA v. The Beauchamp Lodge Settlement (2014) Prosecuted on behalf of the MCA a charity company which had failed to operate a passenger vessel with a valid passenger certificate as required under The Merchant Shipping (Survey and Certification) Regulations 1995. MMO v. Saltire Seafoods Ltd (2013) Represented a Fishing Company for dredging £12,500 worth of undersized scallops, a regulatory offence pursuant to The Scallop Fishing (England) Order 2012 and The Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. MCA v. Generic Enterprises Ltd (2012) Represented Owners of a Spanish Vessel for breaches under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1997 for Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels. MCA v. Captain Koningstein (2012) Represented the Master of a vessel who was involved in a collision with another vessel on the Thames Barrier for offences contrary to The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996. Health and safety law Health and Safety Sunyana Sharma has appeared for both the prosecution and defence in a number of health and safety cases in various tribunals and courts.  She was previously appointed to the C list of Specialist Regulatory Advocates for The Health & Safety Executive, Environment Agency and Office of Rail Regulation.  Between 2017 and 2018, Sunyana was contracted to work as In House Counsel for National Grid PLC in Health, Safety and Environment. She was therefore exposed to various health, safety and environmental issues in the Electricity and Gas Industry. Her work extends to representing both local authorities as well as Companies and individuals.  She has expertise in the following: Electricity and Gas safety Food safety Unsafe products Accidents at work Accidents and collisions at sea Environmental and pollution offences Housing Act 2004 breaches Animal Welfare Act offences Recent cases HSE v. EBM (2023): Instructed to represent a managing agent following asbestos exposure at a residential block of flats. Inquest touching death of TR (2022): Represented care home following death of young man with Dystrophia myotonica where alleged care home failed to mitigate against the risk of falls ultimately leading to death. CQC v. P (2021): Represented a care home and its owner following the tragic death of resident who fell from an external staircase that should not have been accessible. Following written response to CQC, no charges brought under Regulation 12(1) and 22 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. HSE v. L (2021): represented Company for offence under regulation 4(1) of the Work at Heights Regulations 2005 following fall from height during a barn conversion project leading to life changing injuries. R v. SG (2020): Represented a Maritime Operations Officer (‘MOO’) for their involvement in a search and rescue operation following a person in the water at New Brighton who subsequently died. Although police investigation into gross negligence manslaughter allegations against MOO, early involvement in case led to client not being arrested or charged. WAL & LY v. LB of Camden (2020): Acted for Appellants in an appeal against final notices to impose civil penalties for failing to license and HMO. National Grid PLC and National Grid Gas PLC (‘NGG’) (2017 to 2018): Advised on various HSE investigations, prosecutions, improvement notices Advised on amendments to the NGG Gas Safety Case including interpretation of duties in respect of Meters on the Network Advised a Control of Major Accidents Hazard site on improving health and safety arrangements for the distribution network operators on site maintaining their own assets Involved in meetings and discussions on industry led changes to the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations 1996 Advised on the regulatory compliance of major assets e.g. The Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Regulations 2015 Led the team to update policy in relation to employees travelling overseas Responded to ‘Environmental Information Regulations 2004’ requests Inquest touching the death of RS (2016): Represented an employee as an interested party at a three day jury inquest into the death of a colleague whilst at work following a fall through a Perspex roof on his employer’s premises. Buckinghamshire County Council v. B Ltd & PD (2015): Represented a Company and its Director for producing and supplying an ‘unsafe product’ known as the ‘Nutkins cot bed’, attempting to pervert the course of justice and breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.  This was a high profile case which featured on the BBC’s ‘The One Show’ due to the near death of a child. London Borough of Islington v. C Carnavale Ltd & Others (2015): Drafted in at the last hour to represent a Company in a complex application to dismiss for offences pursuant to regulation 4 of the General Food Regulations 2004 as enabled by the Food Safety Act 1990 relating to the traceability requirement and an offence contrary to the regulation 19(1) and 19(2) of the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 in respect of the processing of raw cow’s milk. R v. SJ Norman (2015): Represented the Crown in prosecuting a slaughter house for failing to take a stem cell sample from a bovine contrary to regulation 5(a) and paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 2, Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (England) Regulations 2010. Ealing Borough Council v. MMC Ltd (2014): Instructed in advising a Company and its management on a local authority prosecution in relation to hygiene offences and emergency prohibition order breaches under the Food Safety Act 1990 of its restaurant. South Weald Inns Ltd v. Brentwood Borough Council (2012): Represented South Weald Inns Ltd in an appeal of a noise abatement notice pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Health and Safety Executive v. MB Facilities Ltd (2012): Represented the Defendant Company for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and Work at Height Regulations 2005 arising from the fall of an employee whilst working at height. Slough Borough Council v. Bellforce Developments Ltd, Gurpartap Singh Bhullar, and Jagdeep Singh Bhullar (2012): Successfully prosecuted 3 Defendants in a 9 day appeal to the Crown Court for a local authority for breaches of s.234 and s.72 of the Housing Act 2004. South Oxfordshire District Council v. Doris Davey (2011): Successfully prosecuted a 78 year old Defendant for 11 out of 18 offences for breach of a noise abatement notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Inquests Sunyana Sharma’s experience in inquest work covers medical negligence cases, deaths at sea, fatal accidents at work and deaths in care home settings and suicides of community and voluntary and involuntary patients. . She is well equipped to deal with a full range of inquest work as noted by her expertise in areas of professional disciplinary law, maritime law and health and safety work. In November 2021, Sunyana was appointed as an Assistant Coroner for Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton and now combines this part-time role with her busy inquests’ caseload. She provides added value to inquests as a result of her previous practice area of personal injury in which she conducted clinical negligence claims, work related illnesses and accidents and police misconduct claims. Notable Cases Inquest touching deaths of M, J & P (2023): Representing HM Coastguard Agency in three joint inquests following drownings that occurred during the relaxation of COVID pandemic lockdown. PFD concerns raised on the management of beach safety prior to the inquest. Inquest touching the death of AS (2022): Represented a nurse, who had sole care of a tracheostomy child patient with complex care needs. An article 2 six-day inquest in which neglect issues raised when nurse failed to follow emergency care plan process when tracheostomy dislodged. PFD and referral to NMC avoided. Inquest touching the deaths of YMG & PLF (2021): Represented HMCG in 10-day Judge led inquest which inquired into the drowning of two fisherman following the sinking of the French fishing vessel, the Bugaled Breizh in January 2004. The inquest considered the structural safety of the vessel, adequacy of training and equipment, the possible causes of the sinking including the involvement of another vessel or submarine and the adequacy of the search and rescue of the fishermen. Inquest touching death of SR (2021): Represented Local Authority in an article 2 jury inquest of a drug related death of a patient who was receiving specialist treatment by Healthcare Services under s.37/s.41 of the Mental Health Act under a Restricted Order. Scope of inquest included the adequate monitoring of the deceased’s mental health and the delay in transferring to another jurisdiction, which led to the overdose. Inquest touching the deaths of S & A (2021): Representing a neonatal nurse who erroneously administered sodium nitrite, an unlicensed drug, rather than sodium bicarbonate on two separate occasions leading to the deaths of two babies. Inquest touching death of GPS (2021): Represented HM Coastguard Agency in article 2 inquest following the failed search and rescue of G who was found 11 days after her disappearance was first notified to the Police. Inquest touching the death of D (2020): Represented care home following the death of an elderly resident with dementia. Coroner exploring errors made by multiple individuals in the care of the resident and poor communication between the Home and GP surgery. Inquest touching the death of JT (2020): Represented family in an Article 2 inquest investigating failures by four clinical settings. Concerns included the response by an Ambulance Service, the care provided at two NHS Trusts one of which led to the amputation of the deceased’s leg and the emergency care given in A & E prior to death. Inquest touching the death of BI (2018): Instructed to represent a dredger Company following a collision with a sailing boat leading to a death at sea. Inquest touching the death of NW (2017): Instructed by HM Coastguard Agency following a death at sea in which article 2 issues were raised in relation to the collaboration of multi-agencies. No PFD Report made. Inquest touching the death of RS (2016): Represented an employee as an IP at a 3-day jury inquest into the death of a colleague whilst at work following a fall through a Perspex roof on his employer’s premises. Inquest touching the death of EG (2013): Represented the family of the deceased in an inquest which challenged the clinical care and treatment provided by an NHS Trust.

Susan Solomon

Overview Susan Soloman’s principal areas of practice are professional negligence and family law. She acts on behalf of claimants and defendants in claims against solicitors and barristers (including wasted costs) arising out of family matters (financial, children and Inheritance Act claims), general common law and crime. She advises on all types of ancillary relief claims, including ‘big money’ cases; Inheritance Act claims; issues arising from compensation orders and the Proceeds of Crime Act and co-ownership claims. Cases include: Kelley v Corston [1997] 4 All ER 466; Farrer v Copley Singletons 1997 CA; C v C (Wasted Costs Order) [1994] 2 FLR 34 Family; Hepburn v Hepburn [1989] 1 FLR 373; S v S [1986] Fam 189; Harvey v Harvey [1982] Pam 83. Family Susan's principal area of family practice is in all types of ancillary relief claims, including "big money" cases. She is experienced in working with forensic accountants and valuers. She deals with Inheritance Act claims and cases involving co-ownership. She is also instructed on behalf of claimants and by professional indemnity insurers in negligence and wasted costs claims arising out of family matters. She is now instructed in matters arising out of Compensation Orders and the Proceeds of Crime Act. Notable cases C v C (Wasted Costs Order) [1994] 2 FLR 34 Family Division (claim for wasted costs against solicitors and counsel, instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain on behalf of BMIF) Harvey v Harvey [1982] Fam 83 Hepburn v Hepburn [1989] 1 FLR 373 S v S [1986] Fam 189 Commercial Professional negligence: acting on behalf of claimants and defendants in claims against solicitors and barristers (including wasted costs) arising out of family matters (financial, children and Inheritance Act claims), general common law and crime. Notable cases: Farrer v Copley Singletons 1997 CA (solicitors' negligence: instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain on behalf of Solicitors Indemnity Fund) Kelley v Corston [1997] 4 All ER 466 CA (advocate's immunity: instructed by Veale Wasborough on behalf of Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Limited)

Thomas Tyler

Tom Tyler has a background in all areas of family law. He specialises in giving advice and representing parties in all kinds of family finance disputes. He is usually involved in matters of greater complexity but he is always pleased to be briefed in more straightforward cases involving divorce, ancillary relief, trusts of land and property. Tom is frequently instructed in divorce/financial proceedings where a party faces restraint and confiscation proceedings in the Crown Court having been convicted or accused of a serious criminal offence such as fraud, money laundering, drug/people trafficking.  This is a factor that complicates the financial aspects of the divorce and Tom has a great deal of expertise in this area. Tom is instructed by the Serious Fraud Office as well as the Organised Crime Division of the Crown Prosecution Service as intervener in ancillary relief cases as well as by the parties themselves and affected third parties. Tom is currently representing the Crown Prosecution Service in the Gohil litigation that has recently been before the Supreme Court and is now ongoing once more in the High Court. Tom enjoys giving seminars and lectures on this shady corner of the law. Legal experience is undoubtedly very valuable, however one of Tom’s outstanding qualities is his recognition of the uniquely difficult nature of family litigation involving children and money. He has been through the divorce and financial dispute process himself and therefore offers his clients a true understanding born of personal experience. He is a genuine source of wise and sympathetic advice at a difficult and painful time for either husbands or wives. If a dispute is capable of compromise then Tom will almost invariably sort it out and save the cost of further litigation. However, there may be factors that prevent agreement being reached and in such circumstances Tom can be relied upon to fight his client’s corner. Tom is direct access trained and is always pleased to accept instructions from members of the public who choose not to instruct a solicitor. Areas of Practice: Divorce All aspects of matrimonial finance Trusts of Land and Property Inheritance Act disputes Asset Forfeiture and Confiscation FAMILY Tom is experienced in all aspects of family law matrimonial finance litigation and Children Act disputes including: Co-habitation litigation under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 Safeguarding of assets via freezing orders Maintenance pending suit Proceedings involving Interveners and other third parties Ancillary relief in England & Wales after a foreign decree Enforcement and appeals Setting aside of orders due to non-disclosure Tom is always pleased to receive instructions from clients on a direct access basis. If you are considering instructing Tom, then he would welcome the opportunity of speaking to you on the telephone or Skype prior to being sent your papers. Subject to the complexity of the issues on the case, there is usually no fee for a preliminary consultation of this nature. PUBLIC AND REGULATORY Asset and Tax Recovery Tom is frequently instructed in divorce/financial proceedings where a party faces restraint and confiscation proceedings in the Crown Court having been convicted or accused of a serious criminal offence such as fraud, money laundering, drug/people trafficking.  This is a factor that complicates the financial aspects of the divorce and Tom has a great deal of expertise in this area. Tom is instructed by prosecuting authorities such as the Serious Fraud Office as well as the Organised Crime Division of the Crown Prosecution Service as intervener in ancillary relief cases in the Family/County Court as well as in the Crown Court. He is instructed by the Crown as well as by the parties themselves and affected third parties. Tom is currently representing the Crown Prosecution Service in the Gohil litigation that has recently been before the Supreme Court and is now ongoing once more in the High Court. Tom is always pleased to receive instructions from clients on a direct access basis. If you are considering instructing Tom, then he would welcome the opportunity of speaking to you on the telephone or Skype prior to being sent your papers. Subject to the complexity of the issues on the case, there is usually no fee for a preliminary consultation of this nature.

Thomas O"Donohoe

Overview Thomas O'Donohoe specialises in personal injury law as an advocate and also has a busy advisory practice. He is willing to act on a conditional fee basis in appropriate cases. For more detailed information please see his specialist profile pages. Personal Injury Thomas acts for claimants and defendants on fast and multi-track claims on matters of liability, quantum, costs and procedure. His work ranges from providing pre-action advice to drafting, conducting interim applications, and appearing at trial. Recent cases have included: determining whether or not a defendant would be permitted to call its own expert evidence in relation to an alleged LVI collision determining the claimant’s ‘employer’ and applying the tests for the alternative bases of liability under the health and safety regulations a local authority’s liability for a dangerous defect on the highway employer’s liability for an unsafe system of maintenance work occupier’s liability for spillages in a nightclub split liability for a motorway road traffic accident costs budgeting in a multi-track claim involving complex orthopaedic evidence the assessment of general and special damages for burn injuries and complex dental injuries sustained by two young children the evaluation and settlement of a potentially career-long loss of earnings claim arising from alleged reduced cognitive abilities and involving intended future work outside the UK the assessment of loss of earnings in respect of a claimant self-employed through a limited company structure and also as a sole trader and employee the analysis of covert surveillance evidence of a claimant said to have been exaggerating her injuries Thomas has a great deal of recent experience with costs budgeting and recently presented an update on that subject on behalf of the PI group to clients and solicitors of chambers. Recent experience on behalf of defendants in particular includes striking out credit hire and other financial claims when instructed on behalf of a major regional bus company; striking out and obtaining an ‘exceptional circumstances’ costs award under section IIIA of CPR Part 45 in favour of a defendant to a personal injury claim; cross-examining a claimant at a hearing for the assessment of damages resulting in a significant reduction in general damages from the level indicated by the Judicial College guidelines; and representing multiple defendants at trial defending claims brought by multiple claimants. Thomas is a member of the Personal Injuries Bar Association and is happy to accept instructions on a conditional fee basis where appropriate. Credit Hire Thomas is regularly instructed by claimants and defendants in proceedings involving claims for credit hire charges, often in addition to other heads of loss including personal injuries. Thomas has particular experience of the operation of the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008 and the analysis of rates evidence including cross-examination of the authors of rates reports. Thomas has also recently advised on claims for credit hire charges in respect of a damaged PSV licensed vehicle in a case also potentially engaging the ex turpi causa principle on the basis of unlawful loss of use as well as requiring consideration of relevant VOSA guidelines and the adequacy of the claimant’s insurance for hire and reward purposes under s.145 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Tony Bingham

Anthony Bingham (Tony) is a specialist in Building & Civil Engineering litigation, arbitration, adjudication and alternative dispute resolution. Tony is a practising barrister, arbitrator, adjudicator and mediator. He joined 3PB in 1991. He joined 3PB in 1991. Litigation His main practice is Building and Civil Engineering in the nature of the Technology & Construction Court. Arbitration Became a Fellow of Chartered Institute of Arbitration in 1981 up until 2021 and now has significant experience as a sole Arbitrator and as President of 3-member tribunals. His arbitral appointments outside of UK include Sweden, West Indies and East Africa. Most appointments are for Civil Engineering & Building disputes since Tony Bingham is dual qualified being a Chartered Surveyor, Chartered Builder and practising Barrister. Adjudication Tony Bingham has been appointed to well over 100 Adjudication disputes. He is a member of the following nomination panels: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Chartered Institute of Building Institution of Chemical Engineers TeCSA Construction Industry Council Adjudication.co.uk He will accept appointments as adjudicator as a Member of a Dispute Resolution Board. Mediation In recent years this dispute management system has become another important part of Tony Bingham’s practice. Publications Weekly legal columnist in ‘Building’ since 1987.

Victoria Jones

Overview Victoria Jones is an experienced Intellectual Property specialist. She is particularly well-known for her expertise in trade mark and passing off matters in relation to which she has acted for many well-known brands as well as many small and medium size enterprises. Victoria regularly appears before the Chancery Division of the High Court, the IPEC, the UKIPO and the Appointed Person. Victoria Jones is an experienced Intellectual Property specialist. She is particularly well-known for her expertise in trade mark and passing off matters in relation to which she has acted for many well-known brands as well as many small and medium size enterprises. Victoria regularly appears before the Chancery Division of the High Court, the IPEC, the UKIPO and the Appointed Person. Intellectual property “She is unfailingly commercial and is very clear and thorough in her advice and drafting.” “Vicky is both knowledgeable and personable. She is a pleasure to work with.” “She is commercially astute and quick to get to the heart of the issue.” Chambers UK : Intellectual Property – The Regions (Bar) – Band 1 Victoria Jones is an experienced Intellectual Property specialist. Having began her career as a pupil at Hogarth Chambers in 2003, she worked there until moving to Media, Technology and IP law firm Wiggin LLP in 2007 where she worked until joining 3PB in 2009. Since then she has built up a busy practice with an extensive client base. This has since resulted in the development of a group of IP specialists within chambers, of which she is now the group head. Victoria is particularly well-known for her expertise in trade mark and passing off matters and regularly appears before the Chancery Division of the High Court, the IPEC, the UKIPO and the Appointed Person. She has been listed as one of the most instructed counsel before the UKIPO. Victoria’s expertise is such that she is now regularly instructed by leading, world-famous brands who are looking for expert advice in relation to their trade mark portfolios and for representation in cases which involve niche, discreet and sometimes novel areas of trade mark law. She also acts for small and medium size enterprises and regularly acts for clients in IPEC proceedings. Victoria works closely with those instructing her and is known for her commercial approach and for giving clear and practical advice as well as having an eye for detail in all of her cases. Recent cases Tesla, Inc. v Amanj Ali, ’TESLA CHICKEN & PIZZA' O/1115/23 Future (Awards and Qualifications) Limited v Qualsafe Limited, ‘CERAD’ O/0908/23 Hayman-Joyce Property Ltd v Hayman-Joyce Broadway LLP [2023] EWHC 1028 (IPEC) Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management LLC v Ace Global Trading Ltd [2022] 11 WLUK 288 Chanel v Aya Design Group Limited BL O/887/22 Genius Brands International Inc v Guide Association [2022] 3 WLUK 820 Luen Fat Metal & Plastic Manufactory Co. Ltd v Funko UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 951 (IPEC) Oovee Ltd v Saber Interactive Inc BL O/327/22 Ghamkol Sharif UK v Dar Ul Uloom Islamia Rizwia (Bralawai) O-556-22 UK Gymnastics Ltd v British Amateur Gymnastics Association [2021] EWCA Civ 425 Speaking Victoria will be speaking at the CITMA seminar in Birmingham on Tuesday 27 February 2024.

William Hansen

Overview William Hansen specialises in public law, property law and commercial litigation. He is authorized to sit as a High Court Judge in the Chancery Division and also sits as a Recorder, Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge (Administrative Appeals Chamber), a Deputy Chancery Master and a Judge of the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for both land registration and residential property cases. He is a member of the Attorney-General’s ‘A’ Panel of Counsel to the Crown in civil matters and regularly acts for a variety of government departments and agencies including the Secretary of State for the Home Department, HMRC, MoJ, the NCA and the Secretary of State for Business. He is a specialist in public law and judicial review and regularly appears in the Administrative Court acting for the Crown, particularly in the field of immigration, where he has a particular interest in citizenship and nationality, Article 8 ECHR, criminal deportation, asylum, human trafficking and unlawful detention. His expertise extends to any case involving a challenge to the legality of a decision taken by a public body and he has particular expertise in all aspects of human rights. His practice also encompasses all areas of real estate litigation including adverse possession, boundaries, conveyancing, co- ownership, easements, land registration, landlord and tenant, mortgages, options, restrictive covenants and trusts of land. His commercial practice has a distinct chancery bias to it and includes company litigation (directors’ duties, shareholder disputes, and directors’ disqualification), partnership, insolvency and fraud. William also sits as a Legally Qualified Chair for Police misconduct hearings and has wide experience of disciplinary proceedings against professionals. In addition to his police misconduct work, William has also appeared before the SDT, NMC and RICS. William Hansen is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact William for a copy of his privacy policy which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may collect about you, or that is provided to him, will be processed by him. He will provide a copy of this policy to you within two working days of its request. Public and Regulatory William Hansen is a member of the Attorney-General’s ‘A’ Panel of Counsel to the Crown in civil matters and acts for a variety of government agencies, including the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the MoJ, the Department of Health, the Secretary of State for Business and HMRC. As such he is a specialist in public law and judicial review and regularly appears in the Administrative Court acting for the Crown, particularly in the field of immigration, where he has a particular interest in citizenship and nationality, Article 8 ECHR, criminal deportation, asylum, human trafficking and unlawful detention. His expertise extends to any case involving a challenge to the legality of a decision taken by a public body and he has particular expertise in all aspects of human rights. William has wide experience of disciplinary proceedings against professionals and has appeared before the SDT, NMC and RICS. William also sits as a Legally Qualified Chair for Police misconduct hearings and as a fee-paid Judge of the First Tier Tribunal. Recent cases R (on the application of O (A Child)) v SSHD, Supreme Court, [2022] 2 WLR 343 Statutory interpretation. MY (Pakistan) v SSHD [2022] 1 WLR 238 What constitutes refusal of a human rights claim. OA (Somalia) (CG) [2022] UKUT 00033 Country guidance case on Somalia. R (oao Topadar) v. SSHD [2021] 1 WLR 2307 Leave to remain, variation application, s.3C leave, human rights claims. R (oao Alam) v. SSHD [2021] Imm AR 516 Notice of curtailment decision, presumptions, deeming provisions. R (oao Carlos) v SSHD [2021] EWHC 986 (Admin) Credibility and fresh claim, Article 3 and suicide risk. R (on the application of Williams) v. SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 98 Ultra vires and Article 8 and Article 14 ECHR. Property and Estates William Hansen sits as a High Court Judge in the Chancery Division and is also a Deputy Chancery Master and therefore has broad expertise in all areas of Chancery practice. His property practice encompasses all areas of real estate litigation including adverse possession, boundaries, conveyancing, co-ownership, easements, land registration, mortgages, options, restrictive covenants, property damage claims and trusts of land. William also provides expertise in all aspects of the law of landlord and tenant, including business tenancy renewals, dilapidations, forfeiture, leasehold covenants and service charge disputes. He is a Judge of the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for both land registration and residential property cases. William’s expertise in property law extends to cases where property rights and principles of insolvency meet, and he has also been instructed in a number of cases involving disputes about sporting and fishing rights. William acts for a wide range of clients and welcomes direct professional access work. He is also a trained mediator who can offer his services to those looking to mediate property disputes. He is also a member of the Attorney-General’s A Panel of Counsel to the Crown in civil matters and regularly acts for a variety of government agencies. Cases Artist Court Collective Ltd v. Khan, [2016] EWHC 2453 (Ch), [2017] Ch 53 Part 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and rights of first refusal. Bean v Saxton [2016] UKUT 168 (TCC) Determined boundaries. Top Brands Ltd v. Sharma [2015] EWCA Civ 1140 Illegality. Orme v Lyons [2012] EWHC 3308 (Ch) Approach of appellate court to inferences drawn by Adjudicator. Wilkinson v. Farmer (CA), [2010] NPC 105 Proper approach to construction of 1898 deed. Heslop v Bishton [2009] EWHC 607 (Ch), [2009] 2 EGLR 11 Diversion of easements. Virdi v Chana [2008] EWHC 2901 (Ch) Easements of parking. Wallbank v Price [2007] EWHC 3001 (Ch), [2008] 2 FLR 501 Undue influence and duress. Sims v. Mahon [2005] 3 EGLR 67 Term implied into covenant against building without prior approval of plans. Mountney v. Treharne (CA) [2003] Ch 135 Equitable maxims and proprietary rights in the context of insolvency proceedings. Eyre v. McCracken (CA) (2001) 33 HLR 16 Liability under repairing covenant to repair inherent defect. Commercial William Hansen's commercial practice covers the following areas with a distinct Chancery bias to it: Company litigation: directors duties, breach of fiduciary duty, shareholder disputes, unfair prejudice petitions, rectification proceedings and directors' disqualification. Partnership William has advised and acted in a wide variety of partnership disputes involving accountants, solicitors, vets, farmers, doctors and restaurateurs. He has advised on the full panoply of disputes that can arise including dissolutions and winding-up, partitions and buy-outs and detailed accounts and inquiries. Fraud, Misrepresentation and Breach of Trust William has wide experience of all aspects of civil fraud, including fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and dishonest assistance. Recent cases include fraudulent misrepresentation by a vendor in the context of a sale of land and allegations of breach of fiduciary duty involving the diversion of a corporate opportunity by a senior manager alleged to be a fiduciary. Commercial Arbitration and Mediation William is a qualified mediator and also has wide experience of both international and domestic arbitration. His diverse case-load has included an international commercial arbitration against the UN involving UNIDROIT principles and a domestic arbitration involving a dispute about the proper interpretation of a reservation of sporting rights. Recent cases Top Brands Ltd v. Sharma [2015] EWCA Civ 1140 Illegality. Top Brands v. Sharma [2014] EWCA Civ 761 Standing of former liquidator to challenge creditor’s proof of debt. Balevents Ltd v Sartori [2012] EWCA Civ 1508 Breach of fiduciary duty, waiver of breach, fresh evidence. Metro Nominees Ltd v. Rayment [2008] BCC 40 Permission to commence forfeiture proceedings against company in administration. LCP Retail Ltd v. Segal [2007] BCC 584 Abandonment of distress. Mediation William Hansen is a qualified mediator and also has wide experience of both international and domestic arbitration. His diverse case- load has included an international commercial arbitration against the UN involving UNIDROIT principles and a domestic arbitration involving a dispute about the proper interpretation of a reservation of sporting rights. Police law William Hansen has sat as an Legally Qualified Chair (LQC) on police misconduct hearings for a number of years and so has very extensive knowledge and experience of all aspects of police misconduct. He is happy to accept instructions to act for the Appropriate Authority and is equally happy to accept instructions from officers who work for police authorities that do not retain him as an LQC. He also has very broad and deep experience of judicial review as a member of the Attorney General's A list of Panel Counsel.

William Webster

Overview William’s practice comprises traditional land-based Chancery and town and country planning, both in the public and private sectors. He is the author, and also the co-author of text books on planning, easements, the registration of village greens, public rights of way, the listing of assets of community value and restrictive covenants. Areas of expertise Chancery Planning Land-related professional negligence Property Registration of land Trusts Village greens Assets of community value Public rights of way Commercial landlord and tenant Coastal defence and shoreline management Public law issues involving sales/regeneration/compulsory purchase/appropriation/overriding restrictions on land Publications "Renewable Energy from Wind and Solar Power: Law and Regulation" Published by Wildy, Simmonds and Hill in March 2021. The book runs to 310 pages and is the first comprehensive and authoritative coverage of the subject. Click here to read the author's preface. The book includes a foreword by Lord Justice Lindblom who is the senior planning judge in the Court of Appeal. Foreword William Webster has taken on, and performed, a formidable task. In describing and explaining the complex framework of regulation for electricity generation by the two principal sources of renewable energy in this country - solar and wind power - and in presenting a vast amount of law, policy and decision-making, he has filled an expanding gap in the literature on environmental and energy law. Indeed, he has produced the first comprehensive, and authoritative coverage of the subject in a legal textbook. Rightly, the book places its examination of the relevant law and policy in the wider context of the United Kingdom's efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, the legally binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions in the Climate Change Act 2008, the international obligations under the Paris Agreement of 2015, the IPCC's "Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C" of October 2018, and the reports of the Committee on Climate Change in 2018 and 2019. The book explores the arrangements for the approval of wind and solar energy projects in the planning legislation and the process of gaining consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. It connects that discussion to the legislation regimes for the protection of the environment, including the legislation for environmental impact assessment, with a particular focus on habitats and the historic environment. It illuminates the law on nationally significant infrastructure projects. It brings together the national policy and guidance bearing on wind and solar energy projects. And it devotes full chapters specifically to the development of wind farms, both onshore and offshore, and to the development of solar energy. All of this is lucid and thorough. A feature of the book likely to be welcomed by practitioners is the series of case studies in chapters 8 and 10, which analyse recent decisions of the courts and of the Secretary of State, or an inspector and reporter, and draw out the salient principles - for example, on wind power or solar power development proposed in the Green Belt; or affecting important landscape or seascape, or a heritage asset or its setting; or biodiversity; or likely to harm the living conditions of local residents; or offering "community benefits"; or of a scale requiring a development consent order, with a wide range of implications for the local environment, and requiring powers for the compulsory acquisition of land. Here again the approach is both practical and meticulous. William Webster's experience as a practitioner in this area of the law, the case he has taken in organising his material and the clarity of his text will, I am sure, bring this book the success it deserves. The Right Honourable Lord Justice Lindblom Royal Courts of Justice August 2020 Click here to read a review of the book by Dr Ashley Bowes, Editor of the Journal of Planning and Environment Law. Planning Law: A Practitioner’s Handbook This book runs to 766 pages and includes a foreword by Lord Justice Lindblom. The book was published by Wildy, Simmonds and Hill in February 2019. It covers a wide range of planning topics and planning-related topics within a single volume. Lord Justice Lindblom’s foreword to this book is as follows: Foreword In an area of the law that is constantly changing, and constantly growing in complexity, a new text book will always be welcome – the more so if it is thorough, reliable and insightful. This one undoubtedly is. The challenges facing an author who aims to reflect recent changes to the legislative regime for planning, and to record the work of the courts in developing and clarifying the law, are formidable. Gathering the various themes into a clear and usable guide is no easy task. William Webster has managed to cover his subject fully, with a sure grasp of the law, and a facility to point out the salient principles where they occur. His discussion of the principles governing development control and plan-making, the interpretation of national planning policy, planning conditions and obligations, environmental impact assessment, the enforcement of planning control, listed buildings and conservation areas, town and village greens, the lawfulness of planning decisions, and a host of other topics, is thoughtful, lucid and comprehensive. The analysis is sound, and amply supported by relevant case law. Practitioners looking for answers to the questions they meet in advising clients on the law, and when preparing argument in proceedings before the courts, can expect to find answers here. For judges too, both in the Planning Court and elsewhere, the text will be enlightening. I wish this excellent book the success it deserves. The Right Honourable Lord Justice Lindblom Royal Courts of Justice Click here for more information about the contents of the book on the publisher's website. Click here to read a review of the book in Thomson Reuters by Dr Ashley Bowes, Editor of the Journal of Planning & Environment Law. Topics covered include: Assets of community value Town and village greens Public rights of way Gypsies and travellers (policy and enforcement) It is written for busy planning practitioners in the private and public sectors. The book is a single up-to-date reference book and contains a substantial body of footnotes covering the material primary and secondary legislation and case law. Restrictions on the Use of Land This book was published by Wildy, Simmonds and Hill Publishing in November 2016 and extends to nearly 600 pages. It was co-authored with a colleague at 3PB (Robert Weatherley). The book contains sections on easements, village greens, public rights of way, restrictive covenants, assets of community value and elements of planning law. The authors are indebted to Lord Neuberger, then President of the Supreme Court, for his helpful foreword: ‘A book which analyses and explains this complex law (governing the use of land) in an authoritative, up-to-date, practical and clear way is to be warmly welcomed. William Webster and Robert Weatherley deserve warm thanks for having produced such a timely book.’ Direct Access William is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Access Scheme. Property and Estates Notable examples of recent work in the planning/public law sector: JR challenge claiming misapplication of local/national policies and unlawfulness in decision-making in a case involving the provision of replacement facilities arising from the closure of a football stadium sited in an area targeted for regeneration. Acting for a local authority in the case of a disputed land option which did not run with the land and loss of chance damages against original covenantor. Acting for a football club at a public planning inquiry involving equivalence of proposed replacement facilities. Acting for a football club on an appeal against listing of ground as an asset of community value. Advice on regulatory functions in the case of coastal protection works and the delivery of Shoreline Management Plan policies. Acting for local highway on judicial review of modification order. Acting for a local authority on claims for compensation arising out of highway works. A challenging cross-boundary planning appeal in the Midlands involving a proposal for enabling development to fund enhancements to the natural environment, an appraisal of biodiversity net gain using the DEFRA Biodiversity Metric Calculation Tool, and the largest spread of Japanese Knotweed experts had ever seen. Planning enforcement and committal proceedings in multiple cases involving the gypsy traveller community. A proposal within the site of a Scheduled Monument (buried Roman artefacts). Planning conditions limiting the occupancy of new or converted dwellings to local inhabitants (William has also lectured on this topic). Planning obligations which concerned developer delivery of school sites. Advising a neighbouring owner in the case of a proposed 2-storey leisure centre spa building (in the grounds of a Grade 2 listed hotel complex in a conservation area) involving significant impacts on habitats and the prospect of unacceptable light and noise pollution. Advice on tall buildings in Birmingham and London involving issues of excessive height and massing and adverse impact on the townscape, including the setting of heritage assets and harm to the historic environment (historic canals). Advice on assessments made under the Habitats Regulations’ along with disputed mitigation contributions and design issues affecting a 100 plus residential development close to European sites. Appeal involving village infilling exception on a site in the Green Belt. Control of advertisements. Advice was sought on the likelihood of consent to the siting of an elevated digital display unit on a building overlooking a large roundabout having five exists and four entrances. Planning enforcement – unlawful subdivision: the issue was whether children under the age of 18 counted as ‘residents’ for the purposes of a Class 4 use (Paramaguru v Ealing LBC [2018] EWHC 373 (Admin)). Disputed claim to standing in Planning Court where neither appellant had made objections during the appeal process and merely lived in neighbouring properties (Crawford-Brunt v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 3580 (Admin). Successful application to discharge an order made under section 215 of the TCPA 1990 (under which an authority may take steps requiring land to be cleaned up when its condition adversely affects the amenity of an area). Acting in high value litigation between operators involved in the management, disposal and recycling of household waste. Instructed by Surrey County Council to act as their non-statutory inspector in R (NHS) Property Services Ltd) v Surrey County Council [2019] UKSC 58, a case which ultimately went to the Supreme Court where William’s recommendation to the registration authority on the statutory incompatibility objection was upheld, as was his recommendation that the application to register be dismissed. William also appeared as junior counsel in the Supreme Court in Taylor v Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd [2014] UKSC 6 (a village green case), now the leading case on non-peaceable use (William also speaks regularly on village greens and highways). As an Inspector, William recently conducted the first remote village green inquiry in England and Wales for Wiltshire Council (land at Hilperton near Trowbridge). Again as an Inspector, William also conducted Village Green Inquiries for Wiltshire Council (land at Semington near Melksham) and for Staffordshire County Council (land at Heath Hayes). William regularly advises on public right of way (PROW) disputes and also appears for landowners at DMMO confirmation inquiries in the case of opposed modification orders. William is currently acting for Staffordshire County Council on a landowner’s application for judicial review in the case of a challenge to an order made by the surveying authority to add a PROW to the Definitive Map despite the fact that the order has not yet been confirmed by the Secretary of State as an opposed order. The issue is whether, as a matter of fact and law, the landowner is in a position to pre-empt the statutory confirmation process. Acting for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council in a disputed confirmation appeal at a DMMO public inquiry where there were objections to the closure and diversion to a right of way, including in relation to disability discrimination (the new path had steps). The appeal outcome was reported. William also regularly advises on the law and practice of assets of community value (ACV) (introduced in the Localism Act 2011). He acted for the listing authorities on the listing of the football stadia of Old Trafford and Anfield. He has also appeared at ACV review hearings where it is possible to rescind a listing prior to a challenge being taken to the First-tier Tribunal. Local listing is now a consideration of some weight in the planning process. William has recently been involved in challenges affecting the listing of pubs in Somerset and Gravesend (both Grade II listed buildings in conservation areas). William is also acting for Basingstoke Town Community Football Club in the case of the landowner’s pending appeal in the First-tier Tribunal in the case of their former ground at Basingstoke which has been listed as an ACV. Advising a local authority on their powers to override easements and restrictive covenants under the Housing and Planning Act 1996 (ss.203-4) and generally in the case of the exercise of statutory powers, including advice on the authority’s power of appropriation and sale where land is affected by third party rights. Advice in relation to the carrying out of coastal defence works by a coastal erosion management authority. Acting for Surrey County Council in its capacity as Commons Registration Authority on an application to remove land from the Register of Common Land (application involved disputed curtilage of a substantial Grade II listed property set in an AONB). Other recent private law land disputes: TOLATA dispute and accounts involving ownership of a traveller site. Acting for servient owner in an action for an injunction and damages arising from the use of a right of way by a garden centre for the sale of goods outside the range of goods allowed to be sold within the scope of the permitted private right of way. Boundary dispute in the countryside involving the development of land claimed to be within the curtilage of a neighbouring SSSI. Advice on right to light loss and assessment of quantum arising from overshadowing commercial development in an historic Bath street. Advice on breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment/derogation from grant in the case of the acts or omissions of a commercial landlord. Advice on nuisance arising from the shared use of a right of way (business) and the recovery of sums spent on improvements. Tenant’s claim to set aside Tomlin Order (involving a business tenancy) which lacked prudent safeguards, along with an associated trespass to goods claim involving the unlawful removal of externally located refrigeration plant which resulted in severe financial loss to the client’s business. Claimed negligence against a planning consultant arising from failed applications for a prior approval planning permission for a Class O use. Advising Parish Council on the recovery of promised community benefits arising from the development of a solar farm. Advising owner of a two-storey training venue for boxing and other community uses in relation to claimed trespass and serious nuisance arising from adjoining infill development. Advising multiple tenants of long leases in a large building in relation to claimed long-standing breaches of landlord’s repairing covenants, including subsidence damage. Claim involves specific performance of repairing covenants and differing claims for damages for breach of the covenants for repair/loss of quiet enjoyment (including for loss of assessed rental value). Multiple cases involving land registration issues including, in one case, where a restriction had not even been registered against the holder of the unregistered title and, in another, where the deed containing the restrictions had not even been executed by the original covenantor. Multiple cases involving advice, the drafting of applications and a hearing in the Upper Tribunal for orders for discharge or modification of restrictive covenants. Professional Liability William’s experience in his field of chancery work allows him to examine, advise upon and conduct claims where professional negligence issues arise. His expertise in property issues lead him to be called in where there may have been negligence by professional advisers such as counsel, solicitors, surveyors or valuers.

William Charlesworth

Overview William Charlesworth specialises in Construction & Engineering law and accepts instructions for the provision of advisory, advocacy and Alternative Dispute Resolution services. Dual qualified as a Chartered Surveyor, William brings considerable industry experience and added qualifications to his role as a barrister and possesses significant court and advisory experience. Instructing solicitors describe him as “tenacious”, “meticulous”, “conscientious”,” courteous” and “client-focused.” William has substantial construction disputes experience, having worked as a managing consultant in the construction disputes and advisory services sector. He specialised in the provision of expert evidence in relation to the quantum of construction and engineering disputes; a role that included advising on some of the largest international construction disputes ongoing at the time. He has further notable experience of working alongside sector leading construction teams at UK and international law firms. He is further able to demonstrate a commercial acumen, having formally been employed as a senior fund/development monitor. Within his role, he provided consultancy services to clearing banks and other international lending organisations in relation to risk associated with development finance. Having worked on a number of flagship schemes, he has experience undertaking technical reviews of legal documents including the construction contracts, professional appointment documents and collateral warranties, as well as ensuring the requisite ongoing compliance by the borrower. Prior to moving to London, William spent eight years in the Northwest of England working as a surveyor and contracts manager for a PQS consultancy and a contractor respectively. Construction and engineering William’s practice covers the full range of construction and engineering disputes, including defective workmanship or design, delay and disruption, payment adjudications, variations, terminations, final accounts and Contractors’ All Risks (“CAR”) matters. His practice sees him appear regularly in the TCC and County Court TCC lists on construction matters, and act for both employers and contractors. William’s work includes a particular focus on professional negligence claims against surveyors, architects and other professionals acting in the construction sector. William has extensive experience in the provision of advice to parties concerning development finance, and has acted on behalf of the senior funder in the operation of step-in rights. William’s advice further extends to the provision of advice to industry bodies on the development of professional guidance, including the undertaking of bespoke contracts reviews on behalf of such organisations. William primary work includes receipt of instructions to act for parties during both adjudications and associated enforcement proceedings. He further provides advice on the merits of case for parties involved in ongoing disputes including the drafting of the associated statements of case. Examples of recent work include: Acting on behalf of the successful Claimants in TCC adjudication enforcement proceedings defended on both natural justice and jurisdictional grounds. Acting as Sole counsel for the First Defendant in a 3 day multi-track trial concerning the powers and conduct of a local authority arising from the demolishing of a dwelling property under S.78 of the Building Act 1984 Advised Freeholder on the prospects of success and quantum of a claim against the Contract Administrator and Contractor resulting from significant water damage arising from defective remedial works of a listed property. The representation of a Developer in multi-million pound proceedings brought against both the Contractor and Contract Administrator arising from defective work and/or negligence. The representation of a Responding Party in an adjudication seeking a declaration by the Adjudicator concerning the correct interpretation of provision pertaining to nominated sub-contractors. Advising a property purchaser in a claim for professional negligence against a building surveyor arising from property defects that were not identified within a pre-purchase building survey. Advising a sub-contractor on the prospects of success and quantum in a multi-jurisdictional claim for costs arising out of design modifications. Advised Freeholder on the prospects of success and quantum of a claim against the Contract Administrator and Contractor resulting from significant water damage arising from defective remedial works of a listed property. Commercial William’s commercial practice focuses on civil fraud, bribery, misrepresentation and corruption. Combining experience gained within the disciplines of audit and finance with an in depth understanding of criminal law, William has experience in the representation of parties in proceedings brought under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, including those pertaining to the obtaining of restraint orders and the enforcement of confiscation orders over assets in both the UK and Internationally. His practice includes the representation and provision of advice in company matters comprising those concerning partnership and shareholder disputes, including claims involving directors and shareholders; breach of director and fiduciary duty matters; issues associated with fraudulent conduct and breach of restrictive covenant claims. William’s commercial practice further extends to matters concerning the Insolvency Act 1986, and he has appeared in the High Court on multiple occasions concerning the presentation of winding petitions. Such experience includes the seeking of injunctions so as to prevent such presentation in matters arising out of alleged debts in the statutory demands. Recent and Ongoing cases: Appointment by order of the High Court as an independent barrister in the review of documentation concerning a claim brought on account of alleged deceit and conspiracy relating to a multi-million pound revolving facility agreement. The provision of advice in a claim by a UK Company established as a vehicle for joint venture in conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, bribery and dishonest assistance against its former director, CEO and his associate. The ‘secret profits’, totalling in excess of $16,000,000 were alleged to have been distributed amongst offshore companies owned by the Defendants via the utilisation of four different banks. The successful representation of a corporate entity in a claim brought on the basis of multiple allegations of misrepresentation, fraud by false representation and deceit including pyramid selling. The representation of a company in proceedings concerning a Property Freezing Order on account of alleged illegitimate income and involvement in criminal conduct. The advising of an individual concerning an alleged false misstatement made in support of an insurance claim, including the steps the individual was required to address so as to mitigate the impact of any finding against them. Crime William’s practice encompasses all types of asset recovery and financial crime in both the civil and criminal courts. In addition to regular instructions in the full range of civil recovery matters, William both prosecutes and defends in matters pertaining to financial crime and proceeds of crime: an approach that has aided him in the development of an incisive and thorough style to all his cases. Twinned with his in-depth familiarity gained within the Courts, William’s affinity and understanding of complex quantum matters leaves him adept at handling multifaceted cases that often contain significant amounts of forensic and financial information. Such a combination affords him the ability to provide clients with a high degree of assurance that their case is being dealt with efficiently and effectively, with no point of detail having been overlooked. William has experience in dealing with CJA and POCA confiscation matters, including ancillary issues such as restraint, contempt and cash forfeiture. He is acutely aware of the demands and meticulous care required by such cases both in preparation and presentation in Court and can use his extensive experience to the benefit of her clients

Zhen Ye

Overview Dr Zhen Ye is a busy advisory and court practice specialising in commercial, insolvency, company, construction and property law. Zhen regularly appears in the High Court and County Court, acting for a wide range of clients. She is gaining recognition for her compelling and efficient advocacy, consistently demonstrating meticulous preparation. Her clients comment that Zhen is a “skilled advocate”, she is “diligent, intelligent and pragmatic as ever in difficult circumstances”, “exceedingly thorough, and “excellent…… both in preparation and in court”. Zhen is appraised for her “exemplary handling” of dispute and “meticulous preparation and command of the brief was masterful''. Zhen is fluent in English and Mandarin Chinese and proficient in Cantonese Chinese and is especially in demand by China and South East Asia clients who value her approachability and attention to details. Outside her busy work diary, Zhen’s interests are reading, especially Chinese literature, and hot yoga. Publications These include Controlling insider dealing through criminal enforcement in China, Journal of Financial Crime and Regulation of Insider Trading in China, Research Handbook on International Financial Crime. Commercial Zhen Ye's busy commercial practice focuses on disputes arises arising from commercial contracts, insolvency proceedings and company law. A significant proportion of the matters in which she acts raise questions on the application of commercial and contract law to complex, multi-party arrangements. Commercial litigation and contractual disputes Zhen frequently acts in cases with an international element, and is instructed as both sole and junior counsel. She has a particular interest in cross-border commercial disputes and international arbitration, having studied competition law and financial regulations in a comparative context, and being involved in several international arbitration cases. Recent and ongoing cases Acting for the franchisor: in a multi-jurisdiction franchise dispute involving allegations of fee violations and breaches of contract. Led by David Parratt KC. A T I & E C Ltd: Advising the client on challenging an LMAA’s award under section 67 of the English Arbitration Act 1996…. Led by David Parratt KC. GLAS SAS (London Branch) v. European Topsoho SARL and Ors: Commercial court claim by a trustee against the issuer of €250m Secured Exchangeable Bonds, claiming breach of a failure to pay on the maturity date. The underlying dispute concerns a battle for the control of a high-brand fashion company listed on Paris Euronext. Led by Francis Tregear KC. GLAS SAS (London Branch) v. European Topsoho SARL and Ors: in an Application for Norwich Pharmacal Order. Led by Seb Oram Phones 4U Limited v. EE Limited & Ors: Zhen as instructed by Mischon de Reya acting for Telefonica to assist in a junior capacity assisting in relation to proceedings brought by Phones 4U Limited (In administration) alleging conspiracy between EE, Vodafone, Telefonica and their parent companies (at the relevant time). Toucan Energy Holdings Limited Toucan Gen Co Limited v Wirsol Energy Limited [2021] EWHC 895 (Comm); [2021] 4 WLUK 35:Zhen as instructed by Enyo Law to assist in a junior capacity in relation to the litigation of a dispute worth £7,000,000 within the context of the telecoms industry. Company Law Zhen regularly acts in complex corporate disputes, representing clients in contentious matters such as shareholder disputes, directorial breaches, and corporate governance challenges. Recent and ongoing cases SX-v- [M]QM (1); and CTMH Ltd (2) & Ors: Defending a complex unfair prejudice petition which sought changes to the company management arising from allegations of corporate misconduct. Led by David Berkley KC. Partnership Dispute: advising in a partnership dispute over cross-border joint ventures. Unfair Prejudice Petition: Successfully acting as sole counsel for the petitioner in an Unfair Prejudice Petition in the High Court. Insolvency and restructuring Zhen accepts instructions in a range or corporate and personal insolvency matters, with experience of acting for insolvency practitioners, directors, creditors, debtor companies, and trustees in bankruptcy. Recent and ongoing cases Injunctions: Successfully acting as sole counsel for the applicant in an Application for injunctions to restraint presentation and advertisement of winding up petition Assets realisation: Successfully acting for the joint trustees in bankruptcy in proceedings to realise assets in the bankruptcy estate Statutory demand: Successfully acting as sole counsel for a debtor in an Application to set aside statutory demand IVAs: Advising debtors in relation to potential IVAs Construction and engineering Zhen Ye has a busy construction practice and is regularly instructed by individuals, commercial clients, and insurers to represent them in court, adjudication and arbitration, and advise them on a wide variety of construction and engineering disputes. Recent cases include: Acting for the developer in an arbitration in a defects claim Successfully acting for the homeowner in a “smash & grab” adjudication Acting for the employer in an arbitration in respect of their termination of the contract Successfully acting for the contractor defendant in relation to allegations of defective works carried out at a dwelling Successfully acting for the contractor claimant in relation to unpaid invoices and defending the defendant’s counterclaim of the alleged defective works Successfully acting for the contractor defendant in an application for security for costs Successfully acting for the homeowner claimant in a restitution claim Advising on recovery where unknown to the parties Advising on the enforcement of adjudication decision Property and estates Zhen Ye acts for landlords and tenants in both residential and commercial property disputes. She also has significant experience in residential possession proceedings for rent arrears, anti-social behaviour, and claims involving defences of disrepair. Zhen also appears frequently in the County Court and First-tier Tribunal on behalf of the landlords and tenants in claims concerning residential and commercial service charges, breaches of covenant and forfeiture proceedings. Recent work: Successfully acting for a landlord in a claim against the former tenants for rent arrears and defending the former tenants’ counterclaim for disrepair Successfully defending a tenant in the First-tier Tribunal for alleged breaches of restrictive covenants Successfully acting for a leasee in an enfranchisement claim Successfully acting for the landlord respondent to oppose the tenants’ application for permission to appeal of a possession order Advising a leasee in respect of the landlord’s restrictive covenants Acting for a tenant in forfeiture proceedings Advising a leasee on its ground and ability to terminate the lease and how to protect itself against any excessive dilapidation charges.

Legal 500

Our Team

FAQs

Marketing Resources

Newsletters

Contact us